State v. Sutherland

• Decision Date: 23 November 1999
• Citation: 11 S.W.3d 628
• Parties: (Mo.App E.D. 1999) . State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steven M. Sutherland, Appellant. Case Number: ED74659 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date:
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

11 S.W.3d 628 (Mo.App E.D. 1999)

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Steven M. Sutherland, Appellant.

Case Number: ED74659

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

Handdown Date: 11/23/99

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Franklin County, Hon. Ralph F. Voxx

Counsel for Appellant: Gael D. Wood and James W. McGettigan, Jr.

Counsel for Respondent: John M. Morris

Opinion Summary: Steven Sutherland, appellant, appeals his conviction under Section 195.211 RSMo 1994 (all further references shall be to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise noted) for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.

AFFIRMED.

Division One holds: (1) Requiring proof of the entire charge in order to establish the corpus delicti is inconsistent with the theory of corpus delicti and a prior showing of the criminal agency of appellant is not required prior to admission of his statements. The circumstances of the transportation and location of the marijuana at the time of its discovery in Arizona, and its packaging and labeling are sufficient to establish, in this case, the corpus delicti of possession with the intent to deliver, and permits the admissibility of appellant's statements. (2) Further, the evidence, including his statements, is sufficient to support a finding that appellant knew that the package contained marijuana and that he had "knowing and conscious possession" of the marijuana. (3) We do not find that the circumstances of appellant's interrogation created physical or psychological coercion sufficient to overborne defendant's will and that appellant was not coerced by promises of leniency.

Opinion Author: Paul J. Simon, Judge

Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Gaertner, P.J. and J. Dowd, J., concur.

Opinion:

Steven Sutherland, appellant, appeals his conviction under Section.211 RSMo. 1994 (all further references shall be to RSMo 1994 unless otherwise noted) for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.

Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying: (1) his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction in that the evidence failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had "knowing and conscious" possession of the marijuana; (2) his motion in limine and overruling his objections to the admission of his inculpatory statements through the testimony of a highway patrol officer because there was no evidence, independent of the inculpatory statements, to prove the corpus delicti of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver; and (3) his motion to suppress his inculpatory statements and overruling his objections to their admission into evidence because those statements were involuntarily made in that they were obtained from appellant in exchange for promises of leniency. We affirm.

On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, our review is limited to a determination of whether there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror, or in this case the trial court as the fact finder, might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Dulany, 781 S.W.2d 52, 55 (Mo.banc 1989). We accept as true all of the evidence favorable to the state, including all favorable inferences to be drawn from the evidence, and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. Id.

The record reveals that on June 3, 1996, the United Parcel Service (UPS) Center in Tempe, Arizona, received a package from Sun Optics addressed to Streibig Development Corporation (Streibig) in Pacific, Missouri. Richard Nichols, an UPS employee, testified that employees of UPS, checking the parcel for proper packaging, discovered what they believed to be marijuana inside and called the police. Joseph Schiefer, a police officer from Tempe, Arizona, testified that when he arrived at UPS he observed the package and identified the contents as marijuana. He further testified that the package containing marijuana weighed nineteen pounds and that upon investigation, it was discovered that Sun Optics was a fictitious company.

The police in Arizona took approximately two pounds of the marijuana for their investigation and forwarded the remainder in its original packaging to the police in Pacific, Missouri. The Pacific Police Department then made arrangements for a controlled delivery of the package to take place at Streibig, the original destination.

Prior to the delivery, the police obtained an anticipatory search warrant for the premises at Streibig. On the morning of June 6, 1996, Trooper Leonard, an undercover Highway Patrol Officer posing as an UPS employee, delivered the package. Appellant, who was the designated shipping clerk for Streibig, received and signed for the package.

The warrant was executed approximately 50 minutes to an hour after the delivery. Upon searching the premises, officers found the package of marijuana unopened, among other packages, in the receiving and shipping area of the business. Appellant was found working 35 to 40 feet from where the package was located in another part of the building. Since Appellant received and signed for the package, the police began their investigation with him.

Police informed appellant of his Miranda rights and questioned him regarding his knowledge of the delivery of the marijuana. When asked by Corporal Wakefield of the Missouri Highway patrol if he knew that marijuana had been delivered to Streibig that day, appellant said, "No." Later, Corporal Wakefield told appellant that if he cooperated, Wakefield would speak to the prosecuting attorney and advise him of his cooperation. He also told appellant that he thought appellant would be a good candidate for probation. During the questioning which followed, appellant made several incriminating statements, namely; that he was only expecting ten pounds of marijuana; that he was supposed to deliver the drugs to another person; that this was the first time he had used the office as a delivery site; and that he was to receive five hundred dollars ($500.00) and some of the drugs for his efforts.

Later, appellant was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver under Section 195.211. Prior to trial, appellant filed motions in limine and to suppress. In his motion in limine, he argued that his statements made to Corporal Wakefield were inadmissible at trial because there was no independent corroborating proof of the corpus delicti of the crime. In his motion to suppress, appellant argued that his statements or alleged confessions were illegally obtained by promises of leniency. Both motions were denied.

At trial, appellant objected to the admission of his inculpatory statements on the grounds stated in his motion in limine and motion to suppress, but the trial court overruled the objections. At the close of plaintiff's evidence and the close of all the evidence, appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied. The trial court found appellant guilty and ordered a pre-sentence investigation. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced appellant to five years in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections.

We initially address appellant's second point. Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion in limine and overruling his objections to the admission of his inculpatory statements through the testimony of Corporal Wakefield because there was no evidence independent of his inculpatory statements to prove the corpus delicti of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Specifically, appellant claims that, other than his inculpatory statements, there exists no evidence that he or anyone at Streibig...