State v. Mathews

• Decision Date: 15 November 2000
• Citation: 33 S.W.3d 658
• Parties: (Mo.App. S.D. 2000) State of Missouri, Respondent v. Kimberly Sue Mathews, Appellant. 23109
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

33 S.W.3d 658 (Mo.App. S.D. 2000)

State of Missouri, Respondent v. Kimberly Sue Mathews, Appellant.

23109

Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District

11/15/2000

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Webster County, Hon. James P. Anderton

Counsel for Appellant: Kent Denzel

Counsel for Respondent: Gregory L. Barnes

Opinion Summary: None

Prewitt and Crow, J.J., concur.

Robert S. Barney, Chief Judge

Appellant Kimberly Mathews ("Mathews"), was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, section 195.211, RSMo 1994, and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment to be served consecutively to any existing sentence. She appeals, contending that the trial court erred when it allowed testimony that she had a receipt in her purse at the time of her arrest showing the purchase of several "scales" from Wal-Mart. She also contends that the trial court committed plain error when it, sua sponte, failed to prevent a Sheriff's deputy involved in the arrest to testify as to his opinion on an issue of "ultimate fact" and therefore "[invade] the province of the jury . . . ."

Mathews does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her conviction. On review, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdicts, and we do not consider contrary or adverse evidence. See State v. Garrison, 975 S.W.2d 460 (Mo.App. 1998).

On August 11, 1998, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Deputy Sheriff William Watts pulled Mathews' car over because one of the vehicle's headlights was out. A check on her license revealed an outstanding warrant for her arrest. Watts testified that Mathews appeared nervous and was constantly moving, shuffling her feet against the seat, and was "real protective about [the] floorboard." Because of the warrant, Watts placed Mathews under arrest. Mathews agreed to let the deputy search her car. The search revealed a package of tinfoil wrapped around some plastic bags under the driver's seat. The bags contained coffee filters with methamphetamine inside them. Mathews told Watts, "[y]ou're not going to believe me, but this stuff is not mine." When searching Mathews' purse, deputies found a toothbrush holder containing five plastic baggies. Three of the baggies contained methamphetamine and two of the baggies were empty.¹ The baggie with the largest amount of powder in it had the letters KM written on it. The methamphetamine in Mathews' purse weighed 7.82 grams and had a street value of $600. The deputies also found a "marijuana pipe" and a metal camping style matchbox with a brown glass vial containing a white residue. Mathews was carrying $400 in cash on her person at the time of her arrest and the deputies found another $170 or $179 in cash in her purse.

Also in her purse, the deputies found a handwritten note on a slip of paper. The note said: "Steve, 3,200; Kim, 2,400." Above these numbers was written "5,600." Under the "5,600" was written "1,600" which was then subtracted leaving "400 [sic]." The note also had the entries "2 oz . . . B, 4, paid, 1 equals 1600 . . . owes 2 1/2." The deputies also found a receipt from Wal-Mart in her purse that showed the purchase of several "scales" which was dated a week prior to Mathews' arrest.²

At trial, Watts testified, over objection, that scales are used "to weigh drugs and to break drugs down to smaller units or larger units . . . . If . . . they want to break methamphetamines down from . . . ounces to grams where they can make either eight balls or single packages, then . . . you'll need your scales to know how much to put in."

Both of Mathews' points of trial court error posit error in the admission of evidence. "Trial courts have broad discretion when it comes to the admission or the exclusion of evidence at trial. An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's ruling as to the admission or exclusion of evidence absent a clear abuse of discretion." Yahne v. State, 943 S.W.2d 741, 745 (Mo.App. 1997). A trial court will be found to have abused its discretion when a ruling is:

clearly against the logic of the circumstances then before the court and is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate a lack of careful consideration; if reasonable [persons] can differ about the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion.

State v. Brown, 939 S.W.2d 882, 883-84 (Mo. banc 1997)(quoting Shirrell v. Missouri Edison Co., 535 S.W.2d 446, 448 (Mo. banc 1976)).

I.

In her first point on appeal, Mathews contends that the trial court erred in allowing Deputy Watts to testify that Mathews had a receipt from Wal-Mart in her purse at the time of her arrest that showed the purchase of the "scales." Mathews claims that the testimony was "irrelevant because there was no evidence as to what kind of scales were purchased or whether they could be used in the distribution of drugs" and that she was prejudiced by its admission.

"Evidence is logically relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence, or if it tends to corroborate evidence which itself is relevant and bears on the principal issue of the case." State v. Wayman, 926 S.W.2d 900, 905 (Mo.App. 1996); see State v. Fanning, 939 S.W.2d 941, 948 n.14 (Mo.App. 1997)("Evidence is logically relevant to prove or disprove a mental state if its existence appears more or less probable than it did before the state offered the evidence."). "'Legal relevance involves a process through which the probative value of the evidence (its usefulness) is weighed against the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues misleading the jury, undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence (the cost of evidence).'" Fanning, 939 S.W.2d at 948 n. 14(quoting Olinger v. General Heating & Cooling Co., 896 S.W.2d 43, 48 (Mo.App. 1994)). "Balancing the effect and value of evidence is within the trial court's sound discretion." Wayman, 926 S.W.2d at 905. "Error regarding the admission of evidence will result in reversal only if it results in substantial and glaring injustice." Id.

Here, Deputy Watts' testimony that Mathews had a receipt showing the purchase of "scales" from Wal-Mart and that scales are used to package drugs for sale was logically relevant to the issue of whether or not Mathews was intending to distribute methamphetamine. However, it is unclear whether the evidence was legally relevant, since there was no proof that the scales were the type that could be used to weigh small quantities, that the scales...