Case Summary for September 10, 2002

Your Missouri Courts - Supreme Court

Home

Case Summary for September 10, 2002

THE FOLLOWING DOCKET SUMMARIES ARE PREPARED BY THE COURT'S STAFF FOR THE INTEREST AND CONVENIENCE OF THE READER. THE SUMMARIES MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL ISSUES PENDING BEFORE THE COURT AND DO NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ON THE MERITS OF A CASE. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION. SUMMARIES ARE UNOFFICIAL AND SHOULD NOT BE QUOTED OR CITED.

ATTACHED TO THE FOLLOWING DOCKETED CASES ARE ELECTRONIC COPIES OF THE BRIEF(S) FILED BY THE PARTY OR PARTIES. THESE ELECTRONIC BRIEFS HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO PDF BY THE COURT'S STAFF TO ACCOMMODATE VARIOUS WORD PROCESSORS. (If you do not already have the Acrobat reader, you may obtain it free at the Adobe website.) THE ATTACHMENTS MAY NOT REFLECT ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT, THE COMPLETE ELECTRONIC FILING, OR THE FORMAT OF THE ORGINAL FILING. APPENDICES AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS GENERALLY WILL NOT BE POSTED HERE. (To determine whether or which briefs have been filed in a particular case, visit Case.net.) POSTING OF THE BRIEFS DOES NOT REFLECT ANY OPINION OF THE COURT ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE FORMAT OF THE BRIEFS OR THE MERITS OF A CASE. THESE POSTINGS ARE NOT OFFICIAL COURT RECORDS. COPIES OF ALL BRIEFS FILED WITH THE COURT ARE AVAILABLE AT THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING, COURT EN BANC DIVISION.

DOCKET SUMMARIES
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI

Tuesday, September 10, 2002

________________________________________________________________________

SC84267
State of Missouri v. Jared R. Derenzy
Callaway County
Sufficiency of evidence for drug conviction

Westminster College student Jared Derenzy was convicted in June 2000 of one count of delivery of a controlled substance near a school. The evidence at trial showed that in March 1999, a state highway patrol undercover officer went to Derenzy's home in Fulton, which was within 2,000 feet of the school. They had met through Derenzy's classmate, who also was a Holts Summit patrol officer who had agreed to serve as an informant for the Fulton police department in its drug investigation in the area. The patrol officer observed marijuana being smoked in Derenzy's home. He told Derenzy he wanted to buy marijuana. Derenzy ultimately placed about 6 grams of marijuana in a plastic bag and gave it to the officer, who paid $10 in exchange. Derenzy's defense at trial was that he had been entrapped. The court instructed the jury on entrapment, but it did not, as the defense asked, instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of possession of less than 35 grams of marijuana. After his conviction, Derenzy was sentenced as a prior offender to 10 years in prison. He appeals.

Derenzy argues his due process rights were violated because the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the location where the delivery occurred was within 2,000 feet of a school. He contends that the evidence supported the lesser-included offense of possession and that the court erred in not instructing the jury on this offense. He claims the court should have declared a mistrial when the patrol officer testified about previous drug sales in which Derenzy had been involved because these extraneous offenses prejudiced the jury. Derenzy also argues the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not entrapped and that the court should have entered a judgment of acquittal accordingly.

The state responds that although it was not required to prove Derenzy knew his home was within 2,000 feet of a school, the evidence did show he was aware of Westminster's proximity to his home. It argues the court properly refused to submit the lesser-included offense of possession to the jury because Derenzy's proposed instruction was incorrect and because there was no basis for the jury to find Derenzy merely possessed marijuana as he admitted delivering the marijuana to the undercover officer. The state argues there was no need for the court to declare a mistrial because the court instructed the jury to disregard the testimony and Derenzy established that the testimony suggesting he had sold drugs before was based solely on rumors. The state further responds that the court properly overruled Derenzy's motion for judgment of acquittal because there was no substantial evidence that he had been entrapped.

SC84377
State of Missouri v. Alejandro Franco-Amador
Callaway County
Sufficiency of evidence for drug conviction

Alejandro Franco-Amador was convicted following a November 2000 jury trial of second-degree trafficking. According to the evidence at trial, he entered the United States illegally from Mexico and made his way to Phoenix. A man he met in a convenience store there offered to give Franco-Amador a ride to Atlanta for $400. He apparently hoped he could reduce the price of the ride if he helped drive. Franco-Amador was driving the other man's car east on I-70 through Callaway County in March 2000 when he was pulled over by a highway patrol officer. The officer gave him a warning for changing lanes without signaling, but he sought permission to search the car because of smells he thought might be masking contraband and because the men were anxious. The owner of the car gave the officer permission to search, and the officer discovered duct tape under the front passenger seat as well as black pepper and other spices poured one to two inches deep in the rear fenders of the car and under the back seat. He ultimately found three bundled packages in a cavity between the back seat and trunk wall. These packages contained methamphetamine. When the officer went to his patrol car to get handcuffs, the men ran. Franco-Amador was arrested the next morning. He told a Spanish-speaking officer that he did not know there were drugs in the car and that he ran because his friend told him to, he was scared and it appeared the trooper had found something in the car. After his conviction, Franco-Amador was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He appeals.

Franco-Amador argues the court should have entered a judgment of acquittal. He contends the evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed a controlled substance because the jury could not have found that he was aware of or exercised control over the methamphetamine hidden in Amador's car.

The state responds that the court properly denied Franco-Amador's motion for acquittal because a reasonable juror could have found he possessed the methamphetamine. It argues the heavy smell of the masking agents in the car, including the black pepper, showed he knew about the drugs and had control over the drugs. The state further responds that the fact that Callaway County is not in any direct route between Phoenix and Georgia, Franco-Amador's nervousness after being pulled over, the fact that he ran from the officer, and the presence of the duct tape all indicate he had a consciousness of guilt.

SC84354
State ex rel. Robin Hilburn v. Sherry Staeden (Ladlee), Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General
Greene County
Constitutionality of child support enforcement statute

Following the 1992 divorce of Sherry Staeden and Robert Lee Watson, Staeden's sister, Robin Hilburn, was appointed as guardian of the Watsons' three children. In 1995, Hilburn sought to obtain child support. In September 2000, an attorney serving as a hearing officer at the state's department of social services determined that Staeden was responsible for paying Hilburn $343 per month in child support. The division of child support enforcement then ordered Staeden's employer to pay the amounts due from her earnings, and Staeden sought review from the circuit court, which stayed enforcement of the income withholding order. The circuit court voided the administrative order. It found that section 454.490, RSMo 2000, the statute under which the administrative order had been issued, was unconstitutional because it purports to allow an administrative order signed by a lawyer to be enforced as though it were a judgment signed by a judge. The attorney general, who was permitted to intervene in this case the first time it was appealed to this Court, appeals.

The attorney general argues section 454.490 is constitutional because it does not authorize the director of social services to render judgments or transform his orders establishing child support into judgments. Rather, the attorney general contends it merely authorizes collection of child support obligations by the same statutory means used to collect judgments. The attorney general also argues article V of the state constitution permits executive officials to perform judicial functions delegated to them by the general assembly, which here has authorized the director to enforce his child support orders by issuing income withholding orders.

Staeden responds that the court properly voided the administrative order and properly declared section 454.490 unconstitutional. She argues that a person selected for judicial office and authorized to exercise judicial powers under article V of the state constitution did not execute the administrative order. She contends section 454.490 improperly authorizes use of post-judgment enforcement remedies for something that cannot be an order because it is not executed by an article V judge.

SC84322
Carlos Greathouse v. State of Missouri
Benton County
Effectiveness of trial counsel

Following a March 1997 jury trial held in Benton County on a change of venue from Wright County, Carlos Greathouse was convicted of first-degree murder for the November 1990 death of 15-year-old Machelle Lee. The medical examiner concluded she died from a massive injury to the back of her head that broke through her skull and caused internal bleeding. The examiner also found seminal fluid in her body. Greathouse and two other men had seen Lee walking along the road, and they stopped to pick her up. She had sex with one of them, but she refused to have sex with Greathouse, who forced himself on her. They later argued, and he hit her in the head with a rock, killing her. The men drove her body to another location and burned some of her clothing at an abandoned pallet mill. The semen sample taken from Lee did not match any of the men, although the highway patrol forensic expert who conducted the DNA analysis testified it is possible for sexual intercourse to occur without leaving DNA, particularly if the person had a low or no semen count. Evidence was presented that Greathouse has spermacotele, a medical condition that can cause insufficient sperm production and can lead to infertility. His attorney apparently did not challenge this testimony. Greathouse was sentenced to life in prison without possibility of probation or parole. After his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the court of appeals, he sought post-conviction relief from the circuit court. His request was denied, and he appeals.

Greathouse argues his attorney did not act reasonably or competently in failing to hire a DNA expert from the University of Kansas. He also argues his attorney was ineffective in failing to challenge the validity of the explanation of the state's witness as to why the DNA found in the semen in Lee did not match Greathouse. He contends it is possible the state's witness was wrong in his explanation that people such as Greathouse, who have a low sperm count resulting from spermacotele, are not detectable by DNA testing.

The state responds that the defense counsel was not ineffective for not hiring the university DNA expert. It argues the expert the counsel investigated ended up testifying for the state and that the one Greathouse now thinks his attorney should have hired would not have provided a defense because his testimony would have been cumulative to that presented by the state. The state further responds that Greathouse's counsel did cross-examine the state's witness and that the counsel acted reasonably.