State v. Gulley, WD
| Citation | 776 S.W.2d 492 |
| Decision Date | 19 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James Harold GULLEY, a/k/a Paul Adams, Appellant. 41026. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Gary William Smith, Sedalia, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Christopher M. Kehr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before GAITAN, MANFORD and ULRICH, JJ.
James Harold Gulley appeals from a conviction of possession of more than thirty-five grams of marijuana, § 195.020, RSMo 1986, and from a sentence of five years imprisonment. He contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction, and that the trial court erred when it gave the jury an erroneous instruction. The judgment is affirmed.
On October 11, 1986, Officer Jack Porter of the Warsaw, Missouri Police Department received a telephone call from an informant in Kansas City named Martin Zurowski. Mr. Zurowski told Officer Porter that James Harold Gulley kept marijuana and a gun in a mobile home south of Warsaw, Mr. Gulley used the alias "Paul Adams," and an outstanding warrant for Mr. Gulley's arrest might exist.
On October 12, authorized by a search warrant, officers of the Benton County Sheriff's Department conducted a search of the mobile home near Warsaw, where appellant lived with his fiancee, Anita Mayfield. The mobile home consisted of one bedroom, a kitchen, and a living room. During the search, the officers found marijuana inside a chest of drawers in the bedroom. One of the drawers contained marijuana and men's cologne. Another drawer which contained marijuana also contained women's jewelry. More marijuana was found in a suitcase wedged between the bed and the west wall of the trailer in the bedroom. Marijuana was observed in a pie tin in open view near the entrance to the trailer.
The law enforcement officers also found a bag of marijuana which was lying on a pile of clothes on the floor of a bedroom closet. There were two closets in the bedroom of the trailer, and the marijuana was found in the closet that was on the southeast, or left, side of the bedroom wall, filled with men's clothing. No women's clothing was observed in the closet. The closet contained, among other items, hunting-type clothing, men's shoes, and rifle shells. Both Mr. Gulley and Ms. Mayfield testified during trial that the closet was Mr. Gulley's closet. A forensic chemist testified that the bag found in the closet contained 162.8 grams of marijuana.
Mr. Gulley denied seeing the marijuana that was in the pie tin on the table, in his closet, in the drawers, and in the suitcase. He claimed that the informant, Martin Zurowski, placed the marijuana in the trailer. Mr. Zurowski had lived in the trailer with Mr. Gulley and Ms. Mayfield, but he moved out prior to appellant's arrest. Mr. Zurowski slept on a fold-out bed in the living room of the trailer prior to his departure, and Mr. Gulley and Ms. Mayfield slept in the bedroom.
Testimony conflicted about the exact date that Zurowski moved out of the trailer. Ms. Mayfield stated that Zurowski had moved from the trailer three or four days before she and Mr. Gulley were arrested on the 12th of October. Deputy Sheriff Eugene Cole testified that Mr. Zurowski may have moved from the trailer on October 11. Mr. Gulley continued to live in the trailer after Mr. Zurowski vacated it. Mr. Gulley acknowledged that he had been in the trailer on the 11th of October, had spent the night of October 11-12 in the trailer, and had been in the trailer during the early morning hours of October 12.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court considers the facts and all favorable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the state and rejects all contrary evidence and inferences. State v. Clark, 652 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Mo. banc 1983).
Mr. Gulley claims that insufficient evidence was introduced to support his conviction for the possession of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cline, No. 73162
...knowledge of the "nature of the substance." State v. Barber, 635 S.W.2d 342, 343-44 (Mo.1982). To similar effect see State v. Gulley, 776 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Mo.App.1989); State v. Garrett, 765 S.W.2d 314, 315 (Mo.App.1988); State v. Vincent, 755 S.W.2d 400, 401 (Mo.App.1988); State v. Moiser,......
-
State v. Willers, 16672
...Both possession and knowledge of the nature of the controlled substances may be proven by circumstantial evidence. State v. Gulley, 776 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Mo.App.1989); State v. Brown, 750 S.W.2d 715, 716 (Mo.App.1988). Here, defendant questions the sufficiency of the evidence to prove a cons......
-
State v. Weide, No. WD
...belonging to the defendant is incriminating. See, State v. Willers, 794 S.W.2d 315, 318-19 (Mo.App.1990); See also, State v. Gulley, 776 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Mo.App.1989). The value of illegal drugs is also relevant to show knowing and intentional possession. State v. Lowrance, 619 S.W.2d 354, ......
-
State v. Mercado, 19050
...State v. Fuente, 871 S.W.2d 438, 442 (Mo. banc 1994). See also State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584, 587 (Mo. banc 1992); State v. Gulley, 776 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Mo.App.1989). "Actual possession is not necessary to sustain a conviction, constructive possession will suffice when other facts buttres......