## Facts

- Tessie Bell was an inmate in a Missouri correctional facility.
- During a routine search of inmates, a correctional officer found a small packet in Bell’s pocket.
- Testing showed the packet contained marijuana.
- Bell testified that another inmate gave her the packet and that she did not know what it contained.
- The State presented evidence of Bell’s physical possession of the packet and the chemical identification of the substance as marijuana, but offered no direct evidence of Bell’s knowledge apart from the inference from possession.
- Bell was convicted under § 217.360, RSMo, for possessing a controlled substance on the premises of a correctional institution.
- Bell appealed, challenging (1) the sufficiency of the evidence on the “knowing” element and (2) the constitutionality of § 217.360.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Bell knowingly possessed marijuana when the State proved only that marijuana was found in her pocket and Bell denied knowing what the packet contained.
2. Whether § 217.360 violates equal protection, due process, or the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment by imposing criminal liability and penalties for controlled-substance possession within a correctional institution.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Missouri (en banc) affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the State made a submissible case on knowledge by proving Bell’s possession of marijuana; Bell’s denial created a fact dispute for the jury.
- The court rejected Bell’s constitutional challenges and held § 217.360 valid under equal-protection, due-process, and cruel-and-unusual-punishment analyses.

## Legal Principles

- Knowledge in controlled-substance possession cases may be proved by circumstantial evidence and does not require direct proof.
- The prosecution makes a prima facie case of knowing possession by showing the defendant possessed the controlled substance; a defendant’s claim of ignorance generally presents a credibility question for the jury.
- Legislative distinctions addressing contraband in prisons are reviewed under rational-basis principles; the State may treat possession of controlled substances in correctional settings more severely to address safety, order, and deterrence concerns.
- A statute satisfies due process where it gives fair notice of prohibited conduct and includes a culpable mental state such as “knowingly.”
- A penalty authorized by the legislature for drug possession in a correctional institution is not cruel and unusual absent a showing of unconstitutional disproportionality.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that Bell’s physical possession of a packet proved to contain marijuana was substantial evidence from which the jury could infer knowing possession, notwithstanding Bell’s testimony that she did not know the packet’s contents, and it further held that Missouri’s statute criminalizing controlled-substance possession in correctional institutions did not violate equal protection, due process, or the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.


Missouri v. Bell, 719 S.W.2d 763 (1986)