Michael Gasperino Case Study

Michael Gasperino’s conviction resulted from a reverse sting operation in Clay County in 1990, by an undercover agent named Clyde Townsend from the Kansas City Narcotics Unit. He received information from a CI that Justin Parker wanted to buy a large quantity of marijuana, and that Parker would buy the marijuana from Townsend. They arranged to meet in a motel room in Clay County. Officers had also set up an adjoining room to record the whole drug transaction.
Justin Parker arrived at the motel in a car with two other people, but entered the room alone. Parker first sold Clyde Townsend some cocaine. Then Clyde showed Parker the bale of marijuana that was sitting on a dresser. Parker was about to buy the marijuana from Clyde, but not until he

called in his "partners" that were in the car waiting for him. Clyde agreed and this is when the Michael Gasperino finally came into the room and they started talking about prices. They agreed to buy the marijuana for $600 a pound and their total came out to $7,400. Parker and his companions said they had never seen that much marijuana and they would require help moving it, but they were still going to purchase anyway. Parker chipped in half of the money and Gasperino pulled $3,000 from his sock to throw in as well. During the time Clyde was counting the money, this was the signal for the officers in the next room to burst in and make the arrests.
A jury convicted defendant Michael Gasperino of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of §195.211, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1993. Gasperino received a five-year prison sentence in accordance with the jury's verdict. Gasperino appealed to the Court of Appeals of Missouri.
Issue: Did the trial court err in denying Gasperino’s motion for judgment of acquittal?
Holding: No; the trial court did not err in denying Gasperino’s motion.
Opinion: The court found the evidence presented by the state was enough to identify the substance apart of the transaction to be identified as marijuana and therefore held that the defendant, Michael Gasperino, was guilty of the “constructive possession” of marijuana. According to State v. Purlee a prior case involving “constructive possession” may be shown with the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance, which gives way to the assumption that possession of a controlled substance can be figurative. Even though Gasperino never actually was able to distribute the marijuana he possessed. However, I think it is Gasperino’s ultimate inability to control the marijuana that is at issue. It was determined that the purchase of the substance, which lead to the belief that he was now the one in control of the controlled substance was enough for the conviction.
The court also used the case of State v. Lowe, to help affirm their decision. The Lowe court said that the facts that “constructive possession” exists obviously illustrates that the legislature meant to punish a drug offender who possesses an illegal substance, even when the illegal substance is not on the drug offender’s person. The court closes its opinion with the case of State v. West, in which the court found compelling evidence that after he paid for the marijuana he had control because it was against police policy to hand over the substance.