STATE v. MAHLER (2026)

Julie Mahler appeals, following a jury trial, her convictions of possession of a controlled substance, § 579.015,¹ and unlawful use of a weapon, § 571.030, for which the trial court sentenced her to concurrent terms of four years’ imprisonment on each count, suspended the execution of the sentences, and placed her on a five-year term of probation. Mahler raises a single claim on appeal: she argues that the trial court erred in overruling her motion to suppress evidence collected from a search of her purse as exceeding the scope of the search warrant issued for the premises where both she and the purse were located. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Background

On July 28, 2022, a detective with the Mustang Drug Task Force, applied for a search warrant for 60 Green Meadows, in Callaway County, Missouri, after receiving information from a confidential informant that methamphetamine was being sold on the property. A judge granted the warrant, which authorized a search of “the premises or place, adjacent curtilage, all persons, and outbuildings or other structures” for “[m]ethamphetamine and other controlled substances, and all items associated with drug trafficking, drug sales and drug use, including but not limited to drug paraphernalia and currency.” And, on August 3, 2022, the Mustang Drug Task Force executed the warrant.

Inside a bedroom in the home, officers located the individual who was the target of the search. Officers asked Target whether anyone else was present in the room, and he responded there was not. But, when Target was being secured, an officer noticed a foot sticking out from under a blanket on the bed that Target had been lying in when discovered. Officer removed the blanket and discovered Mahler beneath it.

A thorough search of the bedroom also revealed a mirror on top of a dresser with two blue pills, marked with “U25,” and a white powdery residue on it. There was also a brown purse lying on the bed; within it, officers found a prescription pill bottle with a label indicating it contained generic Adderall for an individual who was neither Target nor Mahler. The pill bottle contained 23 blue pills identical to the two found on the mirror, as well as one yellow pill. Subsequent testing revealed that the blue pills were amphetamine, and a white pill also located in the room was hydrocodone. When asked about the pill bottle, Mahler indicated that she had found it in the road. The purse also contained Mahler's driver's license and a 9mm Sig Sauer handgun and ammunition.²

Mahler was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance (one for amphetamines and one for hydrocodone), and one count of unlawful use of a weapon (for possessing a firearm while simultaneously possessing a controlled substance). Before trial, Mahler moved to suppress the evidence found within her purse as the fruit of an unlawful search. The court denied the motion to suppress. At trial, the only evidence Mahler objected to pursuant to her motion to suppress was State's Exhibits 3 and 4, which consisted of the hydrocodone pill (State's Exhibit 3) and the amphetamine pills (State's Exhibit 4).

The jury found Mahler guilty of possession of the amphetamine pills and unlawful use of a weapon but acquitted her of possession of the hydrocodone pill.³ The court sentenced Mahler to concurrent terms of four years’ imprisonment for each count, suspended execution of the sentences, and placed her on a five-year term of probation with ten days of shock incarceration. Mahler appeals.

Analysis

Mahler raises a single claim on appeal:

The trial court clearly erred in overruling Ms. Mahler's motion to suppress the evidence produced from the search of her purse, because this violated her right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 10 and 15 of the Missouri Constitution, in that the uncontroverted facts regarding the search were that Ms. Mahler was a non-resident visitor of [Target]’s residence, the purse in question was her personal property, and police were aware of these circumstances at the time of the search, and as such, the search warrant for [Target]’s residence did not authorize the search of Ms. Mahler. The police officers executing the search did not otherwise have probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of an offense would be found in Ms. Mahler's purse, and as such, no legal basis existed justifying the warrantless basis of M[s]. Mahler’ s purse.

(Emphasis added.)

The State argues that Mahler's claim is not preserved for two reasons: (1) her point relied on attacks only the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress and not the court's admission of evidence, and (2) Mahler failed to object to evidence pertaining to the items discovered in her purse when they were offered and admitted at trial. We agree.

“A pretrial ruling on a motion to suppress and the court's later decision to admit evidence at trial are two separate procedures.” State v. Lloyd, 205 S.W.3d 893, 900 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006). Accordingly, “[a] trial objection to the admission of evidence challenged in a motion to suppress is required to preserve the issue for appellate review.” Id. And “the ruling on a motion to suppress[, alone,] generally cannot be asserted as a point of error on appeal ․ because such a ruling is interlocutory and subject to change during trial.” Id. Thus, “a point relied on attacking the trial court's ruling on a pretrial motion to suppress, without attacking the court's ruling admitting the evidence, is deficient in that it does not identify the actual ruling that is subject to challenge and, therefore, does not preserve the issue for appellate review.” Id. (quoting State v. Wolf, 91 S.W.3d 636, 642 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)).

“Plain error review should be used sparingly, and an appellate court has complete discretion whether or not to review an unpreserved matter for possible plain error.” State v. Whitaker, 405 S.W.3d 554, 559 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013). While “an unpreserved error in the admission of evidence that is the subject of a motion to suppress can, in some instances, be reviewed pursuant to Rule 30.20[⁴ ] for plain error, ․ [t]his is not one of those instances.” Lloyd, 205 S.W.3d at 900-01. While Mahler objected to the admission of the actual hydrocodone (State's Exhibit 3) and amphetamine pills (State's Exhibit 4) seized during the search,⁵ she raised no objection to any testimony regarding the search of her purse or what was discovered inside it. And she affirmatively stated she had no objection when the State offered photographs of the outside and inside of the pill bottle (State's Exhibits 6 and 7), photographs of all of the pills discovered (State's Exhibits 9 and 10), the lab report identifying the pills as controlled substances (State's Exhibit 13), photographs of the firearm and Mahler's driver's license (State's Exhibits 11 and 12), the actual firearm (State's Exhibit 2), and the ammunition (State's Exhibit 15).

Just as in Lloyd, where the defendant's failure to obtain “a continuing objection to any evidence that he contended had been illegally seized,” and then affirmatively claiming no objection to the admission of various items “observed and/or seized by officers during the search,” id. at 901, here, too, Mahler failed to obtain a continuing objection and affirmatively indicated she had no objection to the admission of nearly all evidence pertaining to the items discovered and seized following the allegedly improper search of her purse. The Missouri Supreme Court has only recently emphasized that claims are “particularly ill-suited for plain error review ․ when the appellant's actions or inactions caused or contributed to the error alleged.” State v. Jones, 725 S.W.3d 577, 584 (Mo. banc 2025). “Under th[e]se circumstances, even plain error review is not warranted.” State v. Markham, 63 S.W.3d 701, 707-08 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002).

Here, for the reasons identified above and the fact that Mahler has not requested plain error review in response to the State's preservation argument,⁶ we deny her point on appeal without reaching the merits of her argument.

Conclusion

Mahler failed to object or claimed no objection to evidence derived from the allegedly improper search of her purse, and she failed to challenge on appeal the admission of any of the evidence pertaining to the search of her purse or ask for plain error review. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to engage in plain error review. Mahler's convictions and sentences are affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All statutory citations are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri (Cum. Supp. 2021).

2.   The purse appeared to be designed to conceal and carry a firearm.

3.   The evidence at trial was unclear as to where the hydrocodone pill was located: it may have been inside a dresser drawer or on top of the dresser.

4.   All rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2025).

5.   Notably, the hydrocodone pill and two of the amphetamine pills were seized before Mahler's purse was even searched.

6.   Where an appellant fails to request plain error review, we may decline to do so sua sponte. State v. Whitaker, 405 S.W.3d 554, 559 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013).

Karen King Mitchell, Judge

Thomas N. Chapman, Presiding Judge, and Janet Sutton, Judge, concur.