State v. Mulkey, 36162
Decision Date | 06 May 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 36162,36162 |
Citation | 523 S.W.2d 145 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ernest Wayne MULKEY, Defendant-Appellant. . Louis District, Division One |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Arthur Kreisman, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., K. Preston Dean, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Courtney Goodman, Pros. Atty., Richard B. Scherrer, Asst. Pros. Atty., Clayton, Charles B. Blackmar, Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
Defendant Ernest Wayne Mulkey was convicted of possession of a Schedule II controlled substance in violation of § 195.020, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., and sentenced by the court to two years imprisonment. On appeal defendant raises two points, both of which allege that the state failed to make a submissible case. We affirm.
We review the facts and evidence in a light most favorable to the state, give the state the benefit of all favorable inferences to be drawn therefrom, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. State v. Strong, 484 S.W.2d 657, 661(9) (Mo.1972); State v. Jordan, 495 S.W.2d 717, 719(1) (Mo.App.1973). The evidence favorable to the conviction revealed the following. On June 8, 1973 defendant and one Joseph Martin were arrested for public drunkenness and peace disturbance as a result of an altercation on a parking lot on Lemay Ferry Road in St. Louis County. The arresting police officers members of the St. Louis County Police Department, handcuffed the two men, advised them of their constitutional rights, and frisked them for weapons. Defendant was then seated in the right rear of the police car and his seat belt was fastened. Martin was placed in the left rear seat and his seat belt also was fastened. Officers Byrnes and McDermott, who had custody of the two men, decided to take defendant to St. Louis County Hospital because he was bleeding from the fight.
While driving to the hospital, the police officers heard a crinkling noise in the back seat. This sounded like the crackling of a cellophane wrapper. Officer Byrnes noticed that defendant was slouching in the seat and squirming around. Officer McDermott also observed defendant wiggling around in the seat.
After a ten or fifteen minute drive, the party arrived at the hospital and the police officers removed the two men from the back seat. At this time McDermott saw that an empty cigarette package, which Byrnes had tossed into the back seat earlier, was shoved into the crack of the seat where defendant had been sitting. McDermott then found two pills on top of the cellophane wrapper which covered the cigarette package. The officers proceeded to inform defendant that he was going to be charged with possession of a controlled substance. Defendant told Byrnes that he had just gotten the pills and asked Byrnes to give him a break and forget about them. Defendant and Martin were transported to St. Louis County Police Headquarters after defendant refused treatment at the hospital. During the ride from the hospital to police headquarters defendant again was seated in the right rear seat of the police car.
After defendant and Martin were booked, Byrnes and McDermott returned to their police car and removed the rear seat. Before going on duty that night, Byrnes had checked the inside of the car for contraband. He had removed the rear seat, had searched the area with a flashlight, but had found nothing. Upon removing the rear seat after the arrest, the police officers found a third pill in the same area where defendant had been sitting.
All three pills were identical in appearance. A chemical test performed on one pill revealed it to be phenmetrazene, a Schedule II drug.
Defendant first contends that the court erred by overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of the state's evidence because the state failed to make a submissible case. After this motion had been overruled, defendant introduced evidence. In such a situation, when a defendant presents evidence in his own behalf after his motion for judgment of acquittal has been overruled, he waives any claim of error as to the ruling on his motion. State v. Turnbough, 497 S.W.2d 856, 858(1) (Mo.App.1973).
Defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Thompson, 62446
...194 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Williams, 546 S.W.2d 533 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Winters, 525 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Mulkey, 523 S.W.2d 145 (Mo.App.1975). Article II, § 1, Mo.Const. provides: The powers of government shall be divided into three distinct departments-the legislative, ......
-
State v. Conti
...possession is not demanded, and constructive possession will suffice. State v. Worley, 375 S.W.2d 44, 47 (Mo.1964); State v. Mulkey, 523 S.W.2d 145, 148 (Mo.App.1975); and State v. Davis, 515 S.W.2d 773, 777 (Mo.App.1974). Possession may be proven circumstantially. State v. Davis, supra, at......
-
State v. Brown
...evidence on his behalf. He did not file a motion at the close of the case; error, if any, is thereby waived. State v. Mulkey, 523 S.W.2d 145, 147(3) (Mo.App.1975). We further observe that this issue was not preserved in the motion for new trial. Rule 27.20(a); State v. Angel, 520 S.W.2d 687......
-
State v. Neal
...S.W.2d 784 (Mo.App.1978); State v. Lewis, 526 S.W.2d 49 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Winters, 525 S.W.2d 417 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Mulkey, 523 S.W.2d 145 (Mo.App.1975); and State v. Benfield, 522 S.W.2d 830 (Mo.App.1975). Notwithstanding the inept manner in which defendant's single point on ap......