State v. Glaze

• Decision Date: 18 August 2020
• Docket Number: WD 82708
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Melissa Ann GLAZE, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

611 S.W.3d 789

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Melissa Ann GLAZE, Appellant.

WD 82708

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: August 18, 2020

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Application for Supreme Court Denied September 29, 2020

Application for Transfer Denied December 22, 2020

Julia E. Rives, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

James C. Egan, Columbia, MO, for appellant.

Before Division Four: Cynthia L. Martin, Chief Judge, Presiding, Alok Ahuja, Judge and Thomas N. Chapman, Judge

Cynthia L. Martin, Judge

Melissa Glaze ("Glaze") appeals from the trial court's entry of judgment convicting her of possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 579.015¹ and of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 579.074 following a bench trial. Glaze challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions. Finding no error, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background²

On August 10, 2017, the Missouri State Highway Patrol conducted aerial speed enforcement near the 69 mile marker on Interstate 70 in Saline County, Missouri. At approximately 1:00 P.M., the pilot notified Corporal Dennis Mathes ("Corporal Mathes"), who was staged nearby in his patrol car, that a charcoal Jeep SUV was traveling 84 miles per hour. As Corporal Mathes approached the Jeep SUV, he passed a Honda Accord that was also speeding. Corporal Mathes activated the patrol car's lights and pulled over the Jeep SUV. He exited his patrol car and motioned for the driver of the Honda Accord to pull over. However, the Honda Accord kept going. Corporal Mathes approached the Jeep SUV and told the driver to stay where he was while Corporal Mathes pursued the Honda Accord. While Corporal Mathes was speaking to the driver of the Jeep SUV, he noticed that Glaze was leaning forward in the front passenger seat, looking down toward the passenger floorboard.

Corporal Mathes returned to his patrol car to pursue and stop the Honda Accord. While Corporal Mathes was speaking to the driver of the Honda Accord, he heard a radio report that a vehicle pursuit had begun. Corporal Mathes abandoned the stop of the Honda Accord and left to assist in the pursuit, which involved the Jeep SUV.

The driver of the Jeep SUV had initially followed Corporal Mathes's instruction to remain stopped on the side of the road. However, after a few minutes, the pilot of the aerial speed enforcement plane observed the Jeep SUV driving away after making a U-turn through a ditch onto the south outer road.

Trooper Nathan Wallace ("Trooper Wallace") stopped the Jeep SUV at a truck stop. Trooper Wallace immediately took the driver and Glaze into custody. Another officer, Corporal Liere Dancy ("Corporal Dancy"), arrived at the scene and placed Glaze in her patrol car. Corporal Dancy asked Glaze for identification. Glaze advised that her identification was in her purse, located on the front passenger floorboard. Glaze also indicated that a tote bag containing snacks and beer, which was also located on the front passenger floorboard, was hers. Corporal Dancy retrieved the purse from the Jeep SUV's passenger floorboard for Glaze.

Corporal Mathes and Trooper Wallace searched the Jeep SUV. Trooper Wallace searched the vehicle's passenger side, where he found a small black bag³ on the front passenger floorboard. The black bag was readily visible, and was found with the food and beer Glaze had reported as her belongings. Inside the bag, Trooper Wallace found a bandana wrapped around a "glass smoking pipe with white crystal residue within it," a metal spoon, syringes and syringe caps, and cotton balls. Also in the bag was an Excedrin

bottle containing methamphetamine.

The State charged Glaze as a prior and persistent offender with one count of possession of a controlled substance in violation of section 579.015 and one count of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of section 579.074. A bench trial was held on July 13, 2018.

The evidence established that the Excedrin

bottle contained 5.58 grams of methamphetamine. Corporal Mathes testified that the items found in the small black bag were consistent with intravenous injection of methamphetamine, and that approximately .25 gram of methamphetamine is typically used to get high. Corporal Mathes testified that the driver had been asked about the contents of the vehicle, and had accepted responsibility for all items inside the vehicle except Glaze's personal belongings, specifically mentioning her purse.

Corporal Mathes testified about Glaze's appearance on August 10, 2017. He described Glaze's appearance as "skin-and-bones," consistent with other heavy methamphetamine users with whom he has interacted during his career. He also testified that Glaze was wearing a long sleeve shirt, despite the fact it was August, consistent with an attempt to cover track marks from the intravenous injection

of methamphetamine. Corporal Mathes testified that Glaze's face looked fuller at trial than it did at the time of her arrest.

A video of Glaze sitting inside Corporal Liere Dancy's ("Corporal Dancy") patrol car during the search of the Jeep SUV was admitted into evidence.⁴ Corporal Dancy testified that Glaze appeared "[e]xtremely nervous" during the search of the vehicle.

At the conclusion of the State's evidence, Glaze moved for judgment of acquittal, arguing that the State failed to prove that Glaze had possession of the black bag found on the front passenger floorboard of the Jeep SUV. The trial court denied the motion. The trial court found Glaze guilty as charged.⁵ The trial court sentenced Glaze to twelve years' incarceration for the possession of a controlled substance charge and ten days in jail for the unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia charge.

Glaze appeals.

Standard of Review

"When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the standard of review on appeal from a bench-tried case is the same as the standard used on appeal of a case tried to a jury." State v. Shaw , 592 S.W.3d 354, 357 (Mo. banc 2019). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction and a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal, our task is to determine whether sufficient evidence was presented at trial to permit a reasonable fact finder to find the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence, and the test is not whether we believe the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Gehring , 599 S.W.3d 526, 529 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020). Instead, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, disregarding all contrary evidence and reasonable inferences, in order to determine whether "any rational fact-finder could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Marley , 598 S.W.3d 204, 208-09 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (quoting State v. Stewart , 560 S.W.3d 531, 533 (Mo. banc 2018) ).

Analysis

Glaze presents a single point on appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support her convictions for possession of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia. Glaze argues that the trial court erred in overruling her motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence and finding Glaze guilty because the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Glaze had knowledge of, and an intent to exercise control over, the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia found in the vehicle.⁶

Section 579.015.1 provides that "[a] person commits the offense of possession of a controlled substance if he or she knowingly possesses a controlled substance." (Emphasis added.) Section 579.074.1 provides:

A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia if he or she knowingly uses, or possesses with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body, a controlled substance or an imitation controlled substance....

(Emphasis added.) We "employ the same analysis when reviewing the question of whether [a defendant] possessed drug paraphernalia as when determining whether [a defendant] possessed a controlled substance." Gehring , 599 S.W.3d at 529 (quoting State v. Phillips , 477 S.W.3d 176, 179 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015) ).

Glaze's point on appeal challenges whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she "knowingly possessed" the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia found in the small black bag. "Possessed" is statutorily defined:

[A] person, with the knowledge of the presence and nature of a substance, has actual or constructive possession of the substance. A person has actual possession if he has the substance on his or her person or within easy reach and convenient control. A person who, although not in actual possession, has the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over the substance either directly or through another person or persons is in constructive possession of it. Possession may also be sole or joint. If one person alone has possession of a substance possession is sole. If two or more persons share possession of a substance, possession is joint....

Section 195.010(34). Thus, to prove the essential element of knowing possession, the State had to prove Glaze's "conscious and intentional possession of the [methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia], either actual or constructive, and awareness of the presence and nature of the [methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia]." State v. Zetina-Torres , 482 S.W.3d 801, 807 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Stover , 388 S.W.3d 138, 146-47 (Mo. banc 2012) ). " ‘Proof of a defendant's knowledge of the presence and character of a substance is normally supplied by...