State v. Winsor

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District
110 S.W.3d 882 (2003)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Possession of a controlled substance is a voluntary act if the possessor, after acquiring the item, was aware of their control for a sufficient time to have enabled them to dispose of it or terminate control, even if the possessor's presence at the prohibited location is involuntary.

Facts:

Ian Winsor was stopped by Sgt. K.J. Heather for driving the wrong way on a one-way street.
A background check revealed Winsor had two outstanding warrants, leading to his arrest.
During a search incident to arrest, Sgt. Heather found partially burned marijuana cigarettes in Winsor's sweatshirt and a pipe in his vehicle.
At the police department, Sgt. Heather explicitly warned Winsor that taking drugs into the jail would constitute a felony and asked if he had anything else on his person.
Winsor remained silent in response to the warning.
More than an hour passed between Winsor's arrest and his arrival at the Callaway County Jail.
During the booking process at the jail, a corrections officer discovered a baggie of marijuana hidden in the waistband of Winsor's shorts.

Procedural Posture:

The State charged Ian Winsor in trial court with the felony of possession of a controlled substance on the premises of a county jail.
Winsor waived his right to a jury trial, and the case was tried before a judge on stipulated facts.
The trial court found Winsor guilty and sentenced him to three years imprisonment, but suspended the sentence and placed him on five years probation.
Winsor (Appellant) appealed his conviction to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an individual's involuntary presence at a county jail negate the 'voluntary act' requirement for the crime of possessing a controlled substance on jail premises, when the individual had sufficient time and opportunity to terminate control over the substance before entering?

Opinions:

Majority - Ulrich, J.

No. An individual's involuntary presence at a county jail does not negate the 'voluntary act' required for possessing a controlled substance on the premises. The relevant voluntary act is the possession of the contraband itself, not the act of being present at the jail. Under Missouri statute § 562.011.3, possession is a voluntary act if the possessor was aware of his control over the item for a sufficient time to have been able to dispose of it or terminate his control. In this case, Winsor was explicitly warned that bringing drugs into the jail was a felony and had over an hour between his arrest and his arrival at the jail to relinquish possession of the marijuana. His failure to do so constituted a voluntary act of possession on the jail premises. To hold otherwise would lead to an absurd result where inmates, who are involuntarily present, could not be convicted for crimes committed on jail premises.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies the 'voluntary act' requirement (actus reus) for possession offenses where location is an element of the crime. The court firmly separates the act of possessing an item from the act of being physically present in a location. It establishes that a defendant's involuntary transport to a location (like a jail) does not excuse the separate, voluntary act of knowingly continuing to possess contraband within that location, especially after being given an opportunity to dispossess. This prevents a defendant from using the circumstances of their arrest as a shield against liability for a distinct crime committed during that arrest process.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Winsor (2003)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature