## Facts

- In November 2011, Lathrop, Missouri police officers went to Kimberly Paul’s home in connection with an unrelated matter.
- Paul consented to the officers entering her home.
- While inside, an officer observed in plain view what appeared to be the burnt end of a marijuana cigarette in an ashtray on Paul’s kitchen table and seized it.
- Laboratory testing showed the cigarette end contained 0.03 grams of a synthetic cannabinoid (synthetic marijuana).
- Paul testified that several days earlier she hosted a party at her home.
- During the party, a friend brought a product purchased at a gas station, referred to by guests as “K2” or “Mr. Happy.”
- Paul said guests asked to burn the product while she was briefly away; she told them to wait until she returned because she was unfamiliar with it.
- After returning, Paul inspected the packaging and then allowed the substance to be burned like incense; she claimed no one smoked it.
- The packaging included drug-related cues (including referring to the contents as “hash”), a warning that it should not be consumed, and a statement that it was “100% legal.”
- Missouri law had been amended a few months earlier to treat synthetic cannabinoids as controlled substances.
- The State charged Paul with class A misdemeanor unlawful possession of a controlled substance under § 195.202, alleging she possessed a synthetic cannabinoid knowing its presence and nature.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court found Paul guilty and sentenced her to 48 hours in jail.
- Paul appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on the knowledge element.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Paul knew the presence and nature (general character) of the synthetic cannabinoid found in her kitchen, even if she believed it was legal.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the State was not required to prove Paul knew the substance was illegal; it was enough to prove she knew what it was in a general sense.
- The court concluded the fact-finder could infer knowledge of the substance’s nature from the circumstances, including the rolled “marijuana cigarette” form, the party setting, references to “K2”/“Mr. Happy,” Paul’s inspection of packaging that called it “hash” and warned against consumption, and her permission to use it in her home.
- Applying the sufficiency standard, the court viewed the evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the judgment and deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations.

## Legal Principles

- To sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance in Missouri, the State must prove (1) conscious and intentional possession (actual or constructive) and (2) awareness of the presence and nature of the substance.
- “Nature” means the substance’s general character; the State need not prove the defendant knew the substance’s legal status or that it was listed as a controlled substance.
- Knowledge may be shown through circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the totality of the circumstances, including the item’s appearance, how it is packaged or described, and the defendant’s conduct.
- In a court-tried case, the appellate court reviews sufficiency as in a jury case: it accepts as true the evidence supporting the verdict, gives the State the benefit of reasonable inferences, and disregards contrary evidence and inferences.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Paul’s conviction because the State presented enough circumstantial evidence for the trial judge to find that Paul knew the substance’s general character as synthetic marijuana: it appeared as a marijuana cigarette, was introduced and discussed at a party using synthetic-marijuana brand names, and Paul inspected packaging describing it as “hash” and warning not to consume it before allowing it to be used in her home, even if she accepted the label’s claim that it was “100% legal.”


Missouri v. Paul, 436 S.W.3d 713 (2014)