State v. Corley, 41406
Decision Date | 19 January 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 41406,41406 |
Citation | 628 S.W.2d 380 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Larry CORLEY, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert Ramsey, Joseph W. Downey, St. Louis, for appellant.
George A. Peach, St. Louis, for respondent.
Defendant appeals his conviction by jury of possession of heroin, §§ 195.020 and 195.017, RSMo. 1978. He was sentenced to one year in the Workhouse of the City of St. Louis, Missouri pursuant to § 195.200. We affirm.
We first deal with defendant's assertion that the trial court erred in failing to suppress evidence seized under the authority of a search warrant allegedly issued without a showing of probable cause. Detectives Morgan and Stolte each signed affidavits for a search warrant of the residence in which defendant was subsequently arrested. The two affidavits recounted in substantially similar terms the tip of a reliable "confidential source" who had in the previous year and a half given information resulting in six arrests. These arrests had led to two convictions and two cases were still pending at the time of execution of the affidavits. In addition, the arrests had resulted in the confiscation of heroin, marijuana and firearms. According to the affidavits, the confidential source reported to have been at the residence within the last three days and had both observed and consummated heroin transactions with one "L.P." Morgan and Stolte swore that "L.P." was the defendant, and that during surveillance they had observed an "inordinate amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic" around the house. According to the source, heroin was to be found in the upstairs bedroom of the abode. The affidavits in the case at hand communicated that the source's information was grounded upon recent personal observations and that the source had in the past afforded correct information to the police. Therefore, the application for the search warrant stated facts sufficient to show probable cause. The seized heroin was properly admitted in evidence. Section 542.276; State v. Rohrer, 589 S.W.2d 121, 122-126 (Mo.App.1979). See also, United States v. Brinkley, 623 F.2d 533, 534 (8th Cir. 1980) and United States v. Skramstad, 649 F.2d 1259, 1262 (8th Cir. 1981).
Defendant further claims error by the trial court in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all the evidence because the circumstances surrounding defendant's joint control of the premises failed to establish that he had control, and therefore, possession of the heroin. In analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence by motion for judgment of acquittal, facts and appropriate inferences intelligently drawn therefrom must be assessed in the light most favorable to the state, and all adverse inferences and evidence must be ignored. Review is circumscribed to whether the evidence is sufficient to build a submissible case and whether there is sufficient evidence from which reasonable individuals could conclude defendant to be guilty. State v. Moon, 602 S.W.2d 828, 831 (Mo.App.1980).
The evidence favorable to the state showed that Morgan and Stolte placed the residence in question under surveillance and saw either defendant or his automobile on nearly all of the occasions when surveillance was conducted. Police officers executed the warrant on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Galvan
...jury, State v. Murphy, 753 S.W.2d 90, 92 (Mo.App.1988), who may believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented. State v. Corley, 628 S.W.2d 380, 382 (Mo.App.1982). Defendant also contends the evidence adduced by the state was insufficient to support his conviction on Count IX, arson. ......
-
State v. Johnson
...(Mo.1982). Actual, physical possession of a controlled substance is not required to establish the element of control. State v. Corley, 628 S.W.2d 380, 382 (Mo.App.1982). Rather, constructive possession proven by means of circumstantial evidence may suffice. Id. Exclusive control of the prem......
-
State v. Jackson, 57791
...therefrom in the light most favorable to the verdict and we must disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. State v. Corley, 628 S.W.2d 380, 381 (Mo.App.1982). Our function is not to weigh the evidence, but to determine only if there was sufficient evidence from which reasonable......
-
Section 26.4 Grounds for Granting
...so construed, would permit a reasonable jury to convict the defendant. State v. Thomas, 529 S.W.2d 379, 383 (Mo. 1975); State v. Corley, 628 S.W.2d 380, 381–82 (Mo. App. E.D. 1982). A court will not weigh conflicting evidence or reach its own credibility determinations, other than when a tr......