State v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 03 September 2013
• Docket Number: No. ED 98475.,ED 98475.
• Citation: 407 S.W.3d 153
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Orlando TAYLOR, Defendant/Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

407 S.W.3d 153

STATE of Missouri, Respondent,

v.Orlando TAYLOR, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 98475.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Three.

Sept. 3, 2013.

Gwenda Renee, Robinson, Missouri Public Defender Office, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Chris Koster, Attorney General, Andrew C. Hooper, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

OPINION

MARY K. HOFF, Presiding Judge.

Orlando Taylor (Defendant) appeals from the judgment upon his conviction by a jury for one count of possession of a controlled substance, heroin, in violation of Section 195.202, RSMo 2000,¹ for which he was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant does contest the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the following evidence was presented at trial:

In February, 2010, the St. Louis Police Special Operations Unit received information from a confidential source that narcotics and firearms were being stored and sold by two individuals at a home in the City of St. Louis. The confidential source identified the individuals as “Dodo,” an African–American man, 5'8? with thin build, long dreadlocks, and a goatee, and “Missy,” whose given name was Cyntoria Lewis. Subsequently, police officers obtained a search warrant for the premises.

Officer Adam Feaman (Officer Feaman), Officer Daniel Book (Officer Book), and a SWAT team arrived at the premises to execute the search warrant. After the SWAT team knocked on the door, announced themselves, but received no answer after twenty seconds, they forcefully entered the premises. Shortly thereafter, Officer Feaman and Officer Book entered the premises.

Upon entering, Officer Feaman found Defendant in the living room, sitting in a chair, with his hands in flex cuffs behind his back. Defendant was the only person found inside the home. Defendant's hair and goatee matched the description of “Dodo,” as did his complexion, weight, and height. Officer Feaman identified himself, gave Defendant a copy of the search warrant, and advised Defendant that he was a target of the investigation.²

Officer Feaman picked up a black jacket that was lying on the couch. He found a loaded gun underneath the jacket resting on top of the couch cushion. After removing the magazine and round from the chamber, Officer Feaman seized the gun. Officer Feaman then searched the jacket and found Defendant's Missouri identification card inside the right front pocket, and a knotted bag, containing twenty six clear capsules of heroin inside the left front pocket.

Police officers searched the remainder of the premises, including two bedrooms. They found a second loaded gun in the rear bedroom, between the mattresses. On top of the dresser, police officers also found a bottle of Dormin, which is used to cut raw heroin, a scale, and another knotted bag, containing several clear capsules of heroin, which resembled those found in the jacket pocket. Also in the rear bedroom, police officers recovered mail addressed to “Cyntoria Lewis” and male clothing.

Defendant was subsequently placed under arrest for possession of a controlled substance. Following a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Defendant to seven years' imprisonment. This appeal follows.

Admission of Evidence of Firearm

In his first point, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defense's motion in limine to exclude evidence of Defendant's possession of a firearm, and in admitting such evidence, over defense counsel's objection, because it constituted inadmissible propensity evidence that was neither logically, nor legally, relevant and substantially prejudiced Defendant. We disagree.

“A trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence at trial.” State v. Forrest 183 S.W.3d 218, 223 (Mo. banc 2006). The trial court's “exercise of this discretion will not be disturbed unless it is clearly against the logic of the circumstances.” State v. Reed, 282 S.W.3d 835, 837 (Mo. banc 2009). “[T]hat discretion is abused when a ruling is clearly against the logic of the circumstances and is so unreasonable as to indicate a lack of careful consideration.” Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 223. “For evidentiary error to cause reversal, prejudice must be demonstrated.” Reed, 282 S.W.3d at 837. “Trial court error is not prejudicial unless there is a reasonable probability that the trial court's error affected the outcome of the trial.” Forrest, 183 S.W.3d at 224.

Here, before trial, defense counsel requested that the trial court exclude evidence of the uncharged offense or bad act of unlawful possession of a firearm. Specifically, Defense counsel objected to the admission at trial of evidence about the gun found underneath the black coat, which contained Defendant's Missouri identification card, as being “unfairly prejudicial to [Defendant].”

The State argued for the admission of the evidence in that it would “give the jury a full picture of the search and what was recovered at the house” and “to show the defendant's knowledge of the controlled substance, given that it was found in such proximity to it.” The trial court denied the motion in limine, stating that it was appropriate for the jury to get the full picture of what the search yielded.

At trial, Defense counsel again objected to the admission of State's Exhibits 10A through 10D, the gun found on the living room couch, and the magazine and rounds found inside the gun, but the objection was overruled by the trial court. Defense counsel also included this claim in his motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.

Evidence of uncharged crimes or wrong acts committed by a defendant is inadmissible when its purpose is to show the defendant has a propensity to commit the crime for which he is standing trial. State v. Primm, 347 S.W.3d 66, 70 (Mo. banc 2011). However, such evidence may be admissible for other purposes, including to establish motive or intent to commit the crime with which the defendant is charged. State v. Bernard, 849 S.W.2d 10, 13 (Mo. banc 1993). Additionally, this type of evidence, when it is part of the surrounding circumstances or sequence of events relating to the charged crime, is “admissible to present a complete and coherent picture of the events that transpired.” Primm, 347 S.W.3d at 70;State v. Morgan, 366 S.W.3d 565, 581 (Mo.App.E.D.2012). Further, the State has latitude to furnish this kind of complete picture to the jury. State v. Flenoid, 838 S.W.2d 462, 467 (Mo.App.E.D.1992).

To be admissible for this purpose, in fact for any purpose, evidence must be logically relevant, in that it tends to establish the defendant's guilt of the charged crime, and legally relevant, in that its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. Morgan, 366 S.W.3d at 581. However, “[r]elevant evidence is not inadmissible because it may be prejudicial.” Flenoid, 838 S.W.2d at 468. The determination of whether any prejudice outweighs the probative value of evidence of uncharged acts is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Id.

In the instant case, evidence that a loaded gun had been found at the scene was admissible to present a complete and coherent picture of the events that transpired. Police had received information from a confidential informant that drugs and guns were being stored and sold out of the residence. When police executed the search warrant, they found both guns and drugs inside the residence.

The gun found under the jacket was also admissible because it was logically and legally relevant towards demonstrating that Defendant “constructively” possessed the heroin found inside the jacket. State v. Purlee, 839 S.W.2d 584, 587 (Mo. banc 1992) (constructive possession is established when other facts support an inference that Defendant knew of the presence of the drugs). In addition, evidence of Defendant's contemporaneous possession of weapons was relevant and admissible to show that Defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed the heroin. See State v. Dowell, 25 S.W.3d 594, 603 (Mo.App.W.D.2000) (evidence of methamphetamine, a syringe, and a semi-automatic handgun seized from defendant's car during a traffic stop were admissible as relevant at trial for defendant's manufacturing a controlled substance in his home, to show defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed the controlled substance).

Finally, Defendant was not prejudiced because there was overwhelming evidence of his guilt. Defendant was the only person inside the home when it was searched by the police. In the living room, on the couch, was a jacket, inside of which officers found heroin pills as well as Defendant's state-issued identification card. In the rear bedroom, officers also found male clothing, a second loaded pistol, a bottle of Dormin, which is used to cut raw heroin, a scale, and another knotted bag, containing several clear capsules of heroin, which resembled those found in the jacket pocket. The trial court did not err in admitting evidence of the gun because it provided a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the crime and was relevant in showing that Defendant possessed the drugs found inside the jacket. Point I is denied.

Insufficient Evidence to Support Conviction

In his second point, Defendant argues the trial court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of all of the evidence because there was insufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction of possession of a controlled substance, heroin, in that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant actually or constructively possessed the heroin, knowing of its presence and illegal nature. We disagree.

“When considering the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, this Court must determine whether sufficient evidence permits a reasonable juror to find guilt beyond...