State v. Zetina-Torres
| Decision Date | 01 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 95194,SC 95194 |
| Citation | 482 S.W.3d 801 |
| Parties | State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Luis Zetina–Torres, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Zetina–Torres was represented by Margaret M. Johnson of the public defender's office in Columbia, (573) 777–9977.
The state was represented by Dora A. Fichter of the attorney general's office in Jefferson City, (573) 751–3321.
Luis Zetina–Torres (hereinafter, "Appellant") appeals from the circuit court's judgment convicting him of one count of second-degree drug trafficking, section 195.223.9(2), RSMo 2000
.1 Appellant raises two points on appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction and instructional error. This Court holds there was sufficient evidence to support Appellant's conviction and there was no instructional error. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.2
On July 16, 2010, Missouri State Highway Patrol Sergeant Brooks McGinnis (hereinafter, "Sgt. McGinnis") was working a "ruse" drug checkpoint on Interstate 70 in Saline County at the Route EE and K exit. This operation entailed placing signs on the interstate informing drivers that a drug checkpoint was ahead when, in fact, no checkpoint existed. The informational signs were in English and Spanish. Sgt. McGinnis testified that the purpose of the "ruse" checkpoint is to try to elicit enough panic in drug traffickers that they exit the interstate early and draw attention to themselves. Interstate 70 was selected because it is a known drug corridor, and the signs were placed prior to a specific exit because it contained no services for motorists that would justify exiting the interstate prior to the "ruse" drug checkpoint.
While conducting this operation, Sgt. McGinnis observed a black Nissan truck exit the interstate and travel north on Route EE. Sgt. McGinnis followed the truck approximately thirteen miles until it reached the city limits of Marshall, Missouri. At the city limit, the speed limit dropped, and the truck failed to adjust its speed. Sgt. McGinnis stopped the truck for a speeding violation.
Two men were inside the truck. Appellant was the driver, and the passenger was Roberto Maldonado–Echeverria (hereinafter, "Maldonado").3 Sgt. McGinnis explained the speeding violation, and Appellant apologized several times. Both men in the truck appeared nervous and avoided eye contact when speaking to Sgt. McGinnis. There was an overwhelming odor of a cologne-type air freshener, which Sgt. McGinnis testified typically is used as a masking agent to cover the odor of illegal drugs. Further, Sgt. McGinnis noticed there was a single key in the ignition. This was significant because in Sgt. McGinnis' experience, drug traffickers often use a single key because they do not want their personal keys passed off when they deliver the vehicle to another person.
Sgt. McGinnis asked for Appellant's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Appellant produced a Sonora, Mexico, driver's license. Appellant stated he borrowed the truck from his friend, Mardonio. The truck was registered to Benitez Mardonio Cardova,4 who resided at 7100 Longview Road in Kansas City (hereinafter, "the Kansas City address"). The insurance card listed Mardonio Cardova Benitez and Hugo Rivera as the insured parties for the truck. Maldonado produced a Mexican consular card for identification, but did not have a valid driver's license. Maldonado kept yawning, which Sgt. McGinnis was trained to recognize as a possible sign of nervousness.
Appellant exited the truck and went to the patrol car so that Sgt. McGinnis could conduct computer checks on both men and the truck. Sgt. McGinnis spoke to Appellant while he conducted the computer checks and had no difficulty communicating with Appellant.5 Appellant told Sgt. McGinnis they were going to Marshall to pick up another truck from a friend and, then, they were going to take it back to Kansas City to work on the engine. Appellant did not identify his friend. Appellant referred to Maldonado as "Berto" and stated he had known Berto for a year, but he did not know Berto's last name or what he did for a living, although he did know Berto was not a mechanic. The computer check revealed Maldonado's license was suspended and there was a warrant out for his arrest. When Sgt. McGinnis told Appellant about Maldonado's suspended license, Appellant said Maldonado was just along for the ride. Throughout the conversation, Appellant was nervous, avoided eye contact by looking out of the patrol car window, and gave delayed answers as though he was trying to remember certain information.
Sgt. McGinnis then asked Appellant if there were any drugs or weapons in the truck, and Appellant replied, "No, you can check." Sgt. McGinnis confirmed that Appellant gave consent to search the truck. Prior to conducting the search, Sgt. McGinnis returned to the truck to speak to Maldonado. Maldonado told Sgt. McGinnis they were going to Sedalia to see one of Appellant's friends. Maldonado said he had known Appellant for two or three months and that he did not know the name of Appellant's friend in Sedalia. Maldonado did not mention anything about picking up a truck to do engine repairs.
Sgt. McGinnis then conducted a search of the truck. The tailgate was locked despite containing an open truck bed, and the bed liner was sticking out of the rail lip. Sgt. McGinnis moved the bed liner and found a package behind the bed liner that contained 438.74 grams of wet methamphetamine, indicating it was "fairly fresh." The drugs had a wholesale value of $20,000 and a street value of approximately $43,000.
Both men were arrested, and Sgt. McGinnis completed his search. Sgt. McGinnis seized a laptop, the men's cellular telephones, and a GPS device. The GPS device was mounted on the passenger side of the truck and contained an address in Sedalia and the Kansas City address. A text message on Appellant's prepaid cellular telephone also contained the Kansas City address. Appellant's wallet contained a bank card belonging to Mardonio Cardova Benitez and a Money Gram reward card belonging to Mardonio Cordova–Benitez. Several documents inside the passenger door pocket contained the same names.
Appellant was indicted on September 27, 2010. The indictment charged Appellant with acting alone or knowingly in concert with another person to commit first-degree drug trafficking by transporting ninety grams or more of methamphetamine. Appellant and Maldonado were tried separately. At Appellant's July 2011 jury trial, a criminalist testified Appellant's fingerprint matched that of Mardonio Cardova Benitez. The booking photographs of Appellant and Mardonio Cardova Benitez, which closely resembled each other, were also introduced into evidence. This evidence was used to demonstrate Appellant was the actual owner of the truck and Appellant had knowledge of the methamphetamine hidden in the bed liner. Appellant testified at trial that he was arrested previously and mistakenly booked as Mardonio Cardova Benitez. Appellant was convicted of second-degree trafficking and sentenced to serve a life sentence.
On appeal, Appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, raising allegations of error concerning the state's discovery violations and the circuit court's refusal to grant Appellant a continuance because of the discovery violations. The court of appeals found there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of second-degree trafficking, but the court reversed and remanded the case due to the state's discovery violations and the circuit court's error in refusing to grant Appellant a continuance. State v. Zetina–Torres, 400 S.W.3d 343, 357–60 (Mo.App.W.D.2013)
.6
Appellant was retried in February 2014. The evidence was substantially similar to the evidence presented in his first trial and to the evidence presented at Maldonado's trial. However, Appellant's second trial differed from the first in that the second case was submitted on a theory of accomplice liability and required the jury to find Appellant guilty if it concluded that, with the purpose of promoting or furthering the commission of second-degree trafficking, Appellant acted together with or aided Maldonado in committing that offense. Appellant was convicted of second-degree trafficking and now appeals this conviction.
Appellant argues the circuit court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the evidence because there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was guilty of second-degree trafficking. Appellant argues there was insufficient evidence presented that he possessed, had knowledge of, or was aware of the presence of the methamphetamine hidden under the truck's bed liner or that Appellant acted together with or aided Maldonado in committing second-degree trafficking.
To determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support a conviction and to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal, this Court does not weigh the evidence but, rather, "accept[s] as true all evidence tending to prove guilt together with all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, and ignore[s] all contrary evidence and inferences." State v. Holmes, 399 S.W.3d 809, 812 (Mo. banc 2013)
(quoting State v. Latall, 271 S.W.3d 561, 566 (Mo. banc 2008) ). "This Court's review is limited to determining whether there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable juror might have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Letica, 356 S.W.3d 157, 166 (Mo. banc 2011). "This is not an assessment of whether this Court believes that the evidence at trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but rather a question of whether, in light of the evidence most favorable to the State, any rational fact-finder ‘could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vickers
...together with all reasonable inferences that support the verdict, and ignore[s] all contrary evidence and inferences.’ " State v. Zetina-Torres , 482 S.W.3d 801, 806 (Mo. banc 2016) (quoting State v. Holmes , 399 S.W.3d 809, 812 (Mo. banc 2013) ). Our "review is limited to determining wheth......
-
State v. Hartwein
...sufficiency of the evidence, even those not preserved for appeal, are reviewed on the merits, not for plain error." State v. Zetina-Torres, 482 S.W.3d 801, 808-09 (Mo. banc 2016) (citing Claycomb, 470 S.W.3d at 362 ). Therefore, we review Hartwein's sufficiency claims on their merits. See R......
-
State v. Cruz-Basurto
...reversal is required only "when the instructional error is so prejudicial that it deprived the defendant of a fair trial." State v. Zetina-Torres , 482 S.W.3d 801, 810 (Mo. banc 2016) (citation omitted). "Prejudice occurs when an erroneous instruction may have influenced the jury adversely.......
-
State v. Wright
...the jury and, thereby, prejudiced the defendant.’ " State v. Nelson , 505 S.W.3d 437, 444 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (quoting State v. Zetina–Torres , 482 S.W.3d 801, 810 (Mo. banc 2016) ).The State argues that Wright failed to preserve her points on appeal because although Wright objected to the......