Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Guinn

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division

December 4, 2014

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ANGELA MEGAN GUINN, Defendant-Appellant

Page 847

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY. Honorable Sidney T. Pearson III, Circuit Judge.

For Appellant: Stephen Wyse, WYSE LAW FIRM, P.C., Columbia, Mo.

For Respondent: Chris Koster, Attorney General, and Mary H. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, Mo.

GARY W. LYNCH, J. - Opinion author. NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, J. - concurs. DON E. BURRELL, J. - concurs.

OPINION

GARY W. LYNCH, J.

Page 848

Angela Megan Guinn (" Defendant" ) appeals her conviction for attempt to manufacture a controlled substance, see section 195.211.[1] Defendant claims that the trial court erred by not granting her motion to suppress, by admitting retail records of her purchases of pseudoephedrine (cold medicines often used in the manufacture of methamphetamine), and by rejecting her proposed duress jury instruction. Finding no merit in Defendant's claims, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

A jury found Defendant guilty of attempt to manufacture a controlled substance, and the trial court sentenced her to five years' imprisonment but suspended execution of the sentence and placed her on probation for five years. The following evidence was adduced at the suppression hearing and trial.[2]

On December 11, 2012, as part of a " warrant round up," Missouri State Highway Patrol Trooper Joshua McDonald and Rolla Police Officer Jason Campbell approached the residence of Defendant and her boyfriend, Justin Chandler. Trooper McDonald knocked on the front door, and Defendant answered. Trooper McDonald explained that he was there because Defendant and Chandler had outstanding warrants for their arrest. Trooper McDonald asked if he could step inside; Defendant agreed, and Trooper McDonald entered the residence. Chandler joined them in the living room. Officer Campbell asked for permission to search the residence approximately five to ten minutes later. Chandler gave his consent. Lake Area Narcotics Enforcement Task Force Officer Parish arrived and also asked both

Page 849

Chandler and Defendant for consent to search the residence. Both agreed. The officers then searched the residence while Defendant and Chandler were seated in the living room making arrangements for the care of their pets. Defendant was not placed in handcuffs or told to stay in any particular area. Upon searching the residence, Officer Parish found extensive indications of the manufacture of methamphetamine, including pseudoephedrine tablets in Defendant's purse.

Defendant's motion to suppress the items found in the search of Defendant's residence was denied. Defendant also made a motion in limine asking the trial court to preclude the State from using receipts for the purchase of pseudoephedrine as evidence on the basis that they were business records of another crime and violated the Confrontation Clause. The trial court ruled that the evidence was admissible because it was evidence of a continuing course of conduct in commission of the crime for which Defendant was charged.

Based on her testimony and her picture taken on the day she was taken into custody, Defendant proffered to the trial court a duress jury instruction (MAI-CR 310.24). The trial court rejected that instruction.

Discussion

On appeal, Defendant claims that the trial court erred by denying the motion to suppress items obtained in the search of Defendant's residence, by admitting the records of pseudoephedrine sales, and by rejecting a jury instruction on duress.

Denial of Motion to Suppress was not Erroneous[3]

In her first point, Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress because there was no consent for the officers to enter the residence and because the arrest warrant for Defendant ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.