State v. Gott, No. 27060.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
| Writing for the Court | Jeffrey W. Bates |
| Citation | 191 S.W.3d 113 |
| Decision Date | 22 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 27060. |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Dennis GOTT, Defendant-Appellant. |
Page 113
v.
Dennis GOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
Rosalynn Koch, Columbia, MO, for appellant.
Page 114
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Robert J. (Jeff) Bartholomew, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
JEFFREY W. BATES, Chief Judge.
Dennis Gott (Defendant) was charged with committing the class C felony of possessing methamphetamine, a controlled substance. See § 195.202.1 Defendant was found guilty after a jury trial and sentenced to serve seven years in prison. On appeal, Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Exhibit 4. This exhibit is a laboratory report which identified methamphetamine residue in a small key bob recovered by police from the Defendant's pants' pocket when he was arrested. Defendant argues that Exhibit 4 should have been excluded because the State failed to prove that, when the key bob was tested at the crime lab, it was in the same condition as when it was seized from Defendant. Specifically, he argues that chain of custody was not established because the State presented no evidence to show what transpired between the time the key bob was delivered to the laboratory and the time it was actually tested. We affirm.
Defendant does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the following is a summary of the evidence adduced at trial.
In September 2004, Deputy Dennis Fowler (Deputy Fowler) and Missouri Highway Patrol Sergeant Kevin Glazier (Sgt. Glazier) were members of the Southeast Missouri (SEMO) Drug Enforcement Task Force. On September 3rd, Deputy Fowler and Sgt. Glazier were conducting a surveillance operation at an apartment complex in Dexter. At approximately 4:00 p.m., Sgt. Glazier observed a pickup truck pull up and park on the south side of the complex. A woman came out of an apartment on the east side of the building and got inside the truck. After about a minute, she left and walked back around to the east side of the building. She returned about a minute later, accompanied by Defendant. Both got inside the truck. Sgt. Glazier then approached the truck, opened the passenger door and removed Defendant from the truck at gunpoint. Sgt. Glazier placed Defendant on the ground and removed personal items from his pants' pocket. These items included a small key bob, which Sgt. Glazier laid on the ground next to Defendant. By then, Deputy Fowler had arrived on the scene. Deputy Fowler picked up the key bob and observed that it was a container which could be used to carry narcotics. He opened it and saw powder inside.2
Deputy Fowler immediately locked the key bob in his truck. Later that afternoon, he took it back to his office in Dexter. Once there, he packaged the key bob by placing it in an evidence envelope and sealing the envelope with red tape marked "Missouri State Highway Patrol." Deputy
Page 115
Fowler transported the envelope to the Stoddard County Sheriff's Office and placed it in his locker. Deputy Fowler used a padlock to secure the locker, and he was the only person with a key to that lock. On September 16, 2004, Deputy Fowler delivered the envelope to the SEMO crime lab for analysis. At the crime lab, the evidence technician signed in the envelope and assigned it lab number 63749. The envelope was locked inside an evidence locker. The only persons with keys to that locker are the five SEMO crime lab employees.
On January 19, 2005, Chemist Amy Nix (Nix) opened the envelope and analyzed the powder residue inside the key bob. Nix's analysis determined that the powdery residue was methamphetamine, and she prepared a report containing her conclusions. After testing was completed, Nix returned the key bob to the evidence envelope. She resealed the envelope with white lab tape. On that tape, Nix placed her initials, the date of testing and the assigned laboratory number. Nix then returned the sealed envelope to the lab's evidence locker to await pickup. On February 9, 2005, Deputy Fowler picked up the envelope and locked it in his locker, where it was kept until he removed it and brought it to court.
At trial, Sgt. Glazier, Deputy Fowler and Nix all testified regarding the chain of custody of the key bob. The key bob and the evidence envelope in which it was kept were constructively admitted in evidence as Exhibits 3 and 7.3 Deputy Fowler and Nix both recognized Exhibit 7 as the envelope in which the key bob had been kept. The only change in Exhibit 7 that they observed was a new opening, created in court, that was used to remove the key bob from the envelope. Deputy Fowler and Nix each recognized the red tape and white tape which they respectively used to seal the envelope. Both tape seals were undisturbed at the time of trial. Deputy Fowler, Sgt. Glazier and Nix all testified that the key bob was in substantially the same condition as when they last saw it. Sgt. Glazier remembered seeing that particular item when he emptied out Defendant's pocket at the scene of his arrest.
Over Defendant's objections, the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lloyd, 26737.
...admitted because it was used during the trial and published to the jury without objection by Defendant. See, e.g., State v. Gott, 191 S.W.3d 113, 115 n. 3 (Mo.App.2006). 5. The preservation problem was compounded by the fact that Defendant's motion for new trial omitted any reference to the......
-
State v. Bowman, SC 90618.
...custody evidence no longer is required to prove that an item produced at trial is the item taken into custody as evidence. State v. Gott, 191 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Mo.App.2006); State v. Sammons, 93 S.W.3d 808, 810 (Mo.App.2002). Any weaknesses in a witness's visual identification is a proper su......
-
Skovira v. Talley, SD 31629.
...admitted is deemed “in evidence” because it was treated by both sides as if it had been received into evidence); see alsoState v. Gott, 191 S.W.3d 113, 115 n. 3 (Mo.App.2006); Clark v. FAG Bearings Corp., 134 S.W.3d 730, 737 (Mo.App.2004); Main Street Feeds, Inc. v. Hall, 975 S.W.2d 227, 23......
-
State of Mo. v. Bowman, SC90618
...custody evidence no longer is required to prove that an item produced at trial is the item taken into custody as evidence. State v. Gott, 191 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Mo. App. 2006); State v. Sammons, 93 S.W.3d 808, 810 (Mo. App. 2002). Any weaknesses in a witness's visual identification is a prope......
-
State v. Lloyd, 26737.
...admitted because it was used during the trial and published to the jury without objection by Defendant. See, e.g., State v. Gott, 191 S.W.3d 113, 115 n. 3 (Mo.App.2006). 5. The preservation problem was compounded by the fact that Defendant's motion for new trial omitted any reference to the......
-
State v. Bowman, SC 90618.
...custody evidence no longer is required to prove that an item produced at trial is the item taken into custody as evidence. State v. Gott, 191 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Mo.App.2006); State v. Sammons, 93 S.W.3d 808, 810 (Mo.App.2002). Any weaknesses in a witness's visual identification is a proper su......
-
Skovira v. Talley, SD 31629.
...admitted is deemed “in evidence” because it was treated by both sides as if it had been received into evidence); see alsoState v. Gott, 191 S.W.3d 113, 115 n. 3 (Mo.App.2006); Clark v. FAG Bearings Corp., 134 S.W.3d 730, 737 (Mo.App.2004); Main Street Feeds, Inc. v. Hall, 975 S.W.2d 227, 23......
-
State of Mo. v. Bowman, SC90618
...custody evidence no longer is required to prove that an item produced at trial is the item taken into custody as evidence. State v. Gott, 191 S.W.3d 113, 117 (Mo. App. 2006); State v. Sammons, 93 S.W.3d 808, 810 (Mo. App. 2002). Any weaknesses in a witness's visual identification is a prope......