S

S-2009-858

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-858, Jeffrey Dale Brumfield appealed his conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. In a published decision, the court affirmed the district court's ruling that evidence discovered during a search of his vehicle should be suppressed. The ruling was based on the fact that the officer did not have enough probable cause to conduct the search after initially letting the Brumfields go. In this case, one judge dissented. In OCCA case No. S-2009-862, Margaret Ann Brumfield also appealed her conviction for Possession of Methamphetamine. The decision in her case followed the same reasoning as her husband's case, reaffirming the district court's decision to suppress evidence. The judge's ruling was similarly supported by the reasoning that the officer lacked the necessary probable cause for the searches conducted. Again, one judge dissented on the conclusion reached by the majority. The essential facts involved a traffic stop initiated because of speeding and a lack of a valid driver's license. The officer suspected drug use and searched the vehicle, which initially produced no evidence. The second search resulted in the discovery of methamphetamine after a recording revealed incriminating conversation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the officer's actions were not justified legally, leading to the suppression of the evidence collected.

Continue ReadingS-2009-858

S-2009-1176

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-1176, Don Wayne Townsend Jr. appealed his conviction for Omission to Provide for Minor Child. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's dismissal of the case. No one dissented. In this case, Townsend was initially charged with not providing for his child, which was a violation of the law. However, after the state presented its evidence, the trial judge decided that the evidence was not strong enough to continue the trial. The state then sought to appeal this decision, asking if the judge made a mistake in dismissing the case. The court looked carefully at the situation and found that the state's question was not really about the law, but rather about whether the evidence was enough to prove Townsend's guilt. The court explained that proving someone is guilty requires showing they willfully did not support their child for a long time. They also stated that it must be shown that the person had a legal obligation to pay child support. Ultimately, the court agreed with the trial judge's decision and found no error in dismissing the case against Townsend. This means that the matter was closed and he could not be tried again for this charge. The court's decision was recorded, and they indicated that the dismissal order would stand.

Continue ReadingS-2009-1176

S-2009-567

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-567, the appellant appealed his conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute and possession of drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order suppressing certain evidence. One judge dissented. Charles Stephens was arrested after police searched his apartment and found illegal drugs. He asked the court to remove the evidence from the case, saying the police had not followed the law when they obtained it. Initially, a lower court agreed to suppress some of the evidence but allowed some to remain. The State, unhappy with this decision, did not properly challenge the ruling. Later, another judge looked at the case and agreed that since the State did not appeal the initial ruling, they had to follow it. The judge then decided that the evidence not suppressed was also obtained through illegal means and thus had to be removed from consideration in the trial. The State argued against this decision, claiming the suppression ruling was wrong and that the defendant did not have a right to claim ownership of some of the evidence. However, the higher court, after reviewing the case, found that the lower court was correct in its rulings. The final decision was to keep the evidence suppressed, meaning it could not be used against the appellant in court.

Continue ReadingS-2009-567

S-2009-719

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-719, the appellant appealed his conviction for Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, Second and Subsequent Offense. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's decision, which had quashed the felony charge. One member of the court dissented. Leslie Doyle was charged with multiple offenses, including a second DUI, after a traffic incident on April 1, 2001. Initially, the state claimed Doyle had a prior DUI conviction from June 17, 1998, which would elevate his charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, Doyle's attorney argued that since more than ten years had passed since the 1998 conviction, this should not be treated as a felony charge under Oklahoma law. After entertaining arguments from both sides, the special judge ruled in favor of Doyle, stating that because of the ten-year rule, the state could not pursue a felony charge against him. The state then appealed the decision. The core of the argument revolved around the interpretation of statutes related to DUI offenses. The state believed that the existing law allowed them to enhance the charge based on the earlier conviction if the DUI was committed within ten years, regardless of the conviction date. Meanwhile, Doyle maintained that his prior conviction had to occur within ten years of the new charge in order for it to be considered a felony. The reviewing district court confirmed the special judge's ruling, concluding that the law explicitly states convicted and not merely committed, meaning that for enhancement to apply, Doyle's prior conviction must have occurred within the ten-year timeframe, which was not the case here. Ultimately, the court found in favor of Doyle, maintaining that the specific statutes dealing with DUI enhancement supported his case. The court's opinion affirmed the lower court's decision to quash the supplemental information that would have allowed for the felony charge to proceed. A member of the court disagreed with this conclusion and expressed dissent.

Continue ReadingS-2009-719

S-2009-667

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-667, the State of Oklahoma appealed its conviction concerning Christy Anne Selders. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the decision of the District Court of Tulsa County, which dismissed one of the charges against Selders. One judge dissented. The case began when Selders was charged with trying to make illegal drugs and also for defrauding a hotel. During the preliminary hearing, the judge had to decide if the police had a good reason to search Selders' hotel room and if they could use the evidence found there. After the State presented its case, Selders argued that the police search was not legal because they didn't have the right to enter the hotel room without proper permission. The judge agreed with Selders and decided to dismiss the charge related to manufacturing drugs, saying that the evidence was not strong enough to link Selders to the crime. The State didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal, saying the judge made mistakes. They believed that Selders had given permission for the search and that there was enough evidence to try her. Another judge reviewed the case and eventually decided to uphold the original judge's decision. This judge agreed that the police may have thought they had permission to search, but still, they couldn’t prove that Selders was connected to any illegal activity in the hotel room. After reviewing everything, the court decided not to change the first ruling. They said that the dismissal of the charge was correct and that there was no abuse of discretion by the judges involved in the case. In the end, the court confirmed that the order to dismiss the charge against Selders was valid, meaning she would not face trial for that particular accusation.

Continue ReadingS-2009-667

S-2009-363

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-363, Heather Renee Trask appealed her conviction for First Degree Child Abuse Murder. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that prevented the State from arguing alternative theories of guilt against her. One judge dissented. Heather Trask was arrested and charged with very serious crimes after her baby daughter, Mackenzie, died. The baby had injuries that suggested she had been hurt badly. Evidence from doctors showed that the baby died from head injuries caused by blunt force trauma. When the baby was found, she was not breathing and could not be revived. During the trial of Heather's husband, he testified about the night of the baby’s incident. Heather left for work after 7:00 p.m. on the night of the tragedy, and her husband was the only adult with the baby after that time. The experts in the trial said the baby must have suffered severe injuries shortly before she died, but they could not pinpoint the exact moment it happened. The district court listened to the arguments and decided that there was enough evidence to show that Heather’s husband was likely the one who caused the fatal injuries. Because of this, the court ruled that the State could not present alternative theories that might shift blame to Heather. After hearing everything, the appeals court agreed with the district court's decision. They determined that the lower court did not make a mistake by blocking the State from using other theories to argue guilt. Therefore, the ruling that prevented the State from pursuing various angles was upheld, affirming the decision made by the district court.

Continue ReadingS-2009-363

S-2009-235

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-235, Angel Chavez appealed his conviction for Trafficking in Illegal Drugs (Cocaine). In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling, which granted a motion to suppress evidence. The court found that the police officer did not have enough reason to keep Chavez detained after a traffic stop, meaning the search that followed was not valid. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2009-235

S-2009-623

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2009-623, Walker appealed his conviction for possession of a controlled drug with intent to distribute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling that reduced the charge to a misdemeanor for possession of marijuana. One judge dissented from the decision. Walker was originally charged after police found a small amount of marijuana at his home. A person named Brawdy had earlier told deputies that he bought marijuana from Walker. When the police searched Walker's home, they found a very small quantity of marijuana and no other evidence like cash or scales that would suggest he was selling drugs. Two district judges reviewed the evidence and concluded that it did not support the idea that Walker intended to distribute drugs; they only found evidence that he might have had the marijuana for personal use. The state argued that since Brawdy mentioned buying drugs from Walker earlier, this should mean Walker had intent to sell. However, the court pointed out that without more evidence, like packaging or cash, they could not say Walker intended to sell the drug. The judges decided that the lower court acted correctly in reducing the charge. Therefore, the ruling from the District Court that lowered Walker's charge to a misdemeanor was upheld.

Continue ReadingS-2009-623

S-2008-953

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-953, the State of Oklahoma appealed the decision regarding the conviction of James Lee Sharrock for Child Sexual Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's ruling, which had found that the child's out-of-court statements were inadmissible. The majority of the court agreed, while one member dissented. The case started when Sharrock was charged with two counts of Child Sexual Abuse. At a preliminary hearing, the judge decided that there was not enough evidence to proceed with one of the counts. This was because the statements made by a four-year-old child could not be used, as the child was not present to testify, which made those statements hearsay. The State argued that the judge made a mistake by not allowing the testimony of two adults who had interacted with the child. These adults wanted to share what the child said about their experience. However, the judge explained that according to Oklahoma law, the child must either be available to testify or fit certain criteria for hearsay to be considered valid. The State then appealed this decision, and another judge confirmed the initial ruling. Finally, the case was brought to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, which reviewed the arguments and the evidence presented. They concluded that the lower court's decision was correct because the magistrate had the right to determine whether the child was available to testify. In the end, the court upheld the initial decisions made by both lower court judges, stating no mistakes were found in their rulings. The final rulings and orders were affirmed, confirming that the hearsay statements from the child could not be used in the case against Sharrock.

Continue ReadingS-2008-953

S-2008-761

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-761, Robert Lee Smallen appealed his conviction for First Degree Murder. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's suppression order of his statements made during a police interview. Smallen's refusal to waive his rights to silence and counsel was upheld, and he was found not to have voluntarily waived those rights. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2008-761

S-2008-176

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-176, the State of Oklahoma appealed its case against a person charged with multiple crimes, including trafficking in cocaine and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The trial court had ruled that some evidence obtained from a locked safe in the motel room during the arrest should be suppressed, meaning it couldn't be used in court. The State argued two main points in its appeal. First, they believed the trial court made an error by not allowing a detective to share specific statements from a witness who gave permission to search the hotel room. Second, they thought the officers had the right to search the locked safe without needing a warrant. After looking closely at the case and the reasons for the trial court's decisions, the court concluded that the trial judge had done the right thing. It found that the trial court's rulings about hearsay, which refers to using second-hand information as evidence, were not wrong. The judges decided the officers should have obtained a warrant before searching that locked safe. The court affirmed, meaning they agreed with the trial court's decision to suppress the evidence from the safe. A judge dissented but the main ruling stood.

Continue ReadingS-2008-176

S 2007-1212

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2007-1212, Jason L. Bandy appealed his conviction for Negligent Homicide. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to deny the appeal regarding the suppression of a blood test. The court found that the State did not show that reviewing the case would be in the best interests of justice, and they concluded that the suppressed evidence was not a significant part of their case against Bandy. Consequently, the case was sent back to the trial court for further action consistent with this opinion. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS 2007-1212

S-2007-668

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-668, the defendant appealed his conviction for Second Degree Rape and Lewd Molestation. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's ruling that the defendant was denied his right to a speedy trial. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2007-668

S-2008-53

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2008-53, the State of Oklahoma appealed the conviction for Child Abuse. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the earlier decisions, meaning they upheld the conclusion that there was not enough evidence to proceed with the trial against the defendant. One judge dissented in this case. The case was about a parent who was accused of child abuse after leaving her two children in a vehicle while she became unconscious. The court looked at whether the parent’s actions met the legal definition of child abuse. A special judge had already decided there wasn’t enough evidence to charge her, and when the State appealed that decision, the district judge agreed. When the case reached the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the justices reviewed the earlier decisions. They listened to arguments from both sides and looked closely at the facts. They saw that the earlier judges had acted reasonably and hadn’t made any mistakes that would change the outcome. Therefore, they decided to keep the original ruling, which meant that the parent wouldn’t have to face trial for the charges brought against her.

Continue ReadingS-2008-53

S-2007-779

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-779, Wilma Fay Jackson appealed her conviction for eighty-four felony counts and two misdemeanor counts of Obtaining Money by False Pretenses. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the lower court's dismissal of the case. One judge dissented. The case began when Jackson was charged with serious offenses for falsely representing herself as a licensed practical nurse (LPN) and receiving payments for work she did under that title. However, the district court found that there wasn't enough evidence to support the claims against her and dismissed the charges. The state then appealed this decision, claiming that the district court made a mistake in its ruling. The court looked closely at the evidence and the laws involved. They determined that the district court had correctly dismissed the charges because the state did not prove that Jackson had committed the crime as charged. The court pointed out that a key part of the crime was missing—a false representation that resulted in getting something of value without giving anything in return. The district court had ruled that the state did not show enough proof that Jackson had committed fraud. In the dissenting opinion, one judge expressed a different view. This judge believed that even though Jackson had worked at the nursing home, she had misrepresented her qualifications. The judge argued that the nursing home had been tricked into paying her as if she was a licensed nurse and that this should matter legally. The dissenting opinion felt that Jackson's actions deprived the nursing home of the services they expected. In conclusion, the appeal did not change the outcome, and the district court's dismissal of the charges against Jackson was upheld.

Continue ReadingS-2007-779

S-2007-885

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-885, the defendant appealed his conviction for Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the earlier decisions made by the lower courts. One judge dissented. The case started in the District Court of Tulsa County, where the defendant was accused of not registering as a sex offender. After looking at the evidence presented by the state, the special judge decided there was not enough evidence to go to trial. The state didn't agree and decided to appeal this decision, claiming that the lower courts made errors in their judgments. The main points raised in the appeal included whether there was enough evidence to charge the defendant, if the defense of being homeless should be considered, and if homelessness could excuse the defendant from registering as a sex offender. After listening to arguments and reviewing all the evidence and decisions made previously, the court found that the lower courts did not make mistakes. The judges agreed that there was not enough evidence to hold the defendant for trial and that the reasons given by the lower courts were valid. As a result, the court upheld the decisions of the lower judges and ruled that the defendant would not be tried for the charges brought against him. The final orders from the lower courts were affirmed, meaning that the case was closed without any changes.

Continue ReadingS-2007-885

S-2007-31

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2007-31, Riccardo Gino Ferrante appealed his conviction for violating Oklahoma's Peeping Tom statute. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the district court's order that granted the defendant's motion to quash the charges. One judge dissented. The facts of the case began when Mr. Ferrante was charged with taking inappropriate photographs of a woman in a store without her permission. The law he was charged under says that it is not allowed to use cameras to secretly take pictures of someone in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like dressing rooms or restrooms. The key issue in this case was whether the woman had a reasonable expectation of privacy when she was in the store. The district court decided that the law did not apply in this situation because the store was not a place where the woman could expect privacy. The State of Oklahoma disagreed and appealed the decision. However, the court agreed with the lower court's analysis, saying that the law is clear and does not include what the defendant did. They explained that they cannot expand the law beyond its clear meaning. Ultimately, the higher court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the case against Ferrante, saying the action he took was not against the law as written. One judge felt strongly that this decision was wrong and pointed out that when someone dresses modestly, they expect their covered body to remain private. This dissent illustrates the concern about privacy rights for individuals in public spaces.

Continue ReadingS-2007-31

S-2005-890

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-890, Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno appealed their conviction for drug-related charges. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the District Court's dismissal of the case against both defendants. One judge dissented. Ryan Layne Short and Victor Suarez Ortuno were charged with several crimes, including trafficking illegal drugs and other drug-related offenses. On September 1, 2005, the District Court decided to dismiss the charges after finding that the traffic stop that led to the arrests was illegal. This decision went through different hearings, with judges initially disagreeing before ultimately siding with the defendants. The main reason for upholding the dismissal was that the officer lacked sufficient evidence to justify the traffic stop. The court reviewed whether the District Court had made any mistakes in handling the case. They concluded that the court had acted correctly by recognizing that there was no valid reason to stop the vehicle. In summary, the court supported the District Court’s decision to dismiss the case against Short and Ortuno because the initial traffic stop was not lawful. This meant that evidence gathered during that stop could not be used against them. One judge disagreed with this outcome, believing that the case should have been handled differently.

Continue ReadingS-2005-890

S-2005-1250

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1250, Dinkins appealed his conviction for trafficking in illegal drugs, assaulting a police officer, attempted destruction of evidence, and driving without a seatbelt. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court’s ruling, which had granted Dinkins's motion to suppress evidence collected during an illegal search. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2005-1250

S-2006-117

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2006-117, the husband and wife, Larrie and Theresa Moyers, appealed their case concerning charges related to a scheme to defraud the State. They were originally indicted for multiple counts including conspiracy, bribery, and tax violations. Larrie had previously entered a guilty plea and received a sentence. Later, he sought to modify this sentence, which the court granted by reducing his time in prison and adding conditions like probation and treatment. After this modification, the State brought new charges against both Larrie and Theresa. They argued that these charges were unfair and retaliatory, claiming it was revenge for the sentence modification. The trial court agreed, finding that the new charges were indeed retaliatory and dismissed them, stating that this was against due process rights. The State then appealed this dismissal. The court reviewed whether it could hear the appeal and decided it could, as the dismissal was tied to constitutional issues. Ultimately, they affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that the State's action against the Moyers was inappropriate. The decision was published and affirmed the dismissal of all charges against them, maintaining the previous ruling of retaliation based on the lawful actions taken by Larrie Moyers to modify his sentence.

Continue ReadingS-2006-117

S 2005-702

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S 2005-702, Roley appealed his conviction for Child Abuse/Neglect. In a published decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling. One judge dissented. Michael Ray Roley was charged with child abuse/neglect. This case started in Creek County District Court on November 9, 2004. After some hearings, the judge let Roley go free by granting a motion to quash, which means the charges against him were dismissed before a trial could happen. The State of Oklahoma, which was prosecuting Roley, didn't agree with this decision and decided to appeal it. They brought up three main points they believed were wrong with the judge's ruling. First, they argued that a previous case about a person’s right to confront witnesses didn’t apply to preliminary hearings. They said Roley was claiming a right to confront witnesses too early. Second, the State believed that Roley should not have been allowed to extend this right to preliminary hearings in such a broad way. Finally, they suggested that the court should consider the need to protect the child who was the victim in this case. After thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence, the court agreed with the trial judge’s decision. They highlighted that Oklahoma’s Constitution and laws give a person a right to confront witnesses during preliminary hearings, just like in a full trial. The court also noted that hearsay evidence, or what someone said out of court, could not be used unless the person who made the statement was unavailable. In this case, the children who were supposed to testify did not do so, making what the State presented unacceptable to prove that a crime had happened. The judges deliberated and concluded that the trial judge acted correctly when deciding not to allow the case to proceed based on the evidence presented. Therefore, the court supported the decision of the trial court to grant the motion to quash the charges against Roley, keeping him from being tried. In the end, the court affirmed the lower decision and stated that they would issue a mandate to finalize the ruling. One judge had a different opinion and disagreed, but the majority agreed that the earlier ruling should stand.

Continue ReadingS 2005-702

S-2005-1067

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-1067, one person appealed his conviction for Shooting with Intent to Kill, Kidnapping, and Assault and Battery. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the trial court's ruling that denied the State's request to use the transcript of a witness's preliminary hearing testimony during the trial. One judge dissented. The case involved Deangelo Favors and another person who were charged with serious crimes. During the preliminary hearing, a key witness, Roberta Verner, testified, but another potential witness, Lesha Huggins, was not allowed to testify even though the defense wanted to present her testimony, claiming it would prove Verner lied about the crimes. The judge decided that Verner was unavailable for the trial, which meant her earlier statements could not be used unless the defense had a chance to fully question her and present their case. The judge believed that not allowing Huggins to testify took away the defense's opportunity to question Verner properly. The State wanted to appeal the decision, saying it was wrong to not allow them to use Verner’s testimony. However, after looking closely at the facts and arguments from both sides, the court found that the trial judge acted correctly in not letting the State use Verner's earlier testimony. The court noted that it is important for defendants to have the right to question witnesses against them, and that this right was not met in the preliminary hearing because the defense could not call Huggins to support their case. In the end, the decision to deny the State's appeal was upheld, and the case was sent back to the lower court for more proceedings based on the ruling.

Continue ReadingS-2005-1067

S-2005-866

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-866, Matthew Ryan Wells appealed his conviction for several charges including trafficking in illegal drugs and use of a weapon in commission of a crime. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to affirm the ruling of the District Court, which had sustained Wells' motion to quash the information, meaning that the charges against him could not move forward. One judge dissented.

Continue ReadingS-2005-866

S-2005-840

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-840, #Ranney appealed his conviction for #driving under the influence and driving with a revoked license. In an (unpublished) decision, the court decided to deny Ranney's motion to dismiss the State's appeal. The court remanded the case back to the District Court with instructions to vacate its order that had previously granted Ranney's motions to suppress evidence and quash the charging information. #One judge dissented. The case began when Ranney was accused of hitting a sign in a convenience store parking lot while possibly being drunk. The police officer noticed things like the smell of alcohol and Ranney's slurred speech. Ranney admitted to drinking beer when the officer questioned him. At a preliminary hearing, Ranney tried to get his statements thrown out, but that motion was denied. Later, at a different hearing, Ranney asked again to have his statements and the charges dismissed. He argued he wasn't free to go when the officer spoke to him and that his statements were made because he felt pressured. He also claimed the officer didn’t have a good reason to come up and question him. The judge, after considering the situation, decided to grant Ranney’s request without explaining why. This left everyone confused about the reasons behind the decision. The State then asked the judge for a written explanation, but she didn’t respond. The State decided to appeal her decision, but Ranney argued that the appeal should be dismissed because there were no clear reasons from the judge about her ruling. While the court agreed there was a problem with the record, they didn’t think the State should be punished because it was mainly the judge’s fault for not providing explanations. So, the court ordered the case to go back to the lower court. They said the District Court should take away its previous decision and then handle Ranney's motions again, this time making sure to provide clear reasons for any new decisions.

Continue ReadingS-2005-840

S-2005-657

  • Post author:
  • Post category:S

In OCCA case No. S-2005-657, the State of Oklahoma appealed a ruling related to two individuals who were accused of having marijuana with the intent to distribute, along with drug paraphernalia. In an unpublished decision, the court decided to uphold the lower court's ruling that excluded certain evidence. One judge dissented. Here's what happened: The police received a report that someone smelled marijuana coming from a house. When an officer arrived at the scene, he also smelled the marijuana and entered the home without permission. He searched a few areas and found marijuana and a pipe. The two accused individuals stated that the police officer had no right to enter or search their home. Eventually, a search warrant was issued based on the officer's report of the smell of marijuana. However, during a preliminary hearing, it was decided that the initial search was illegal because the officer did not have permission to enter the house and there were no emergency reasons to justify his actions. The judge in the lower court decided that the evidence collected from the illegal search could not be used to support the search warrant, meaning that the search warrant itself could not stand. Since there was no valid reason to issue the search warrant without the evidence from the initial illegal search, the evidence collected after the warrant was also thrown out. The state argued that the smell of marijuana alone could be enough to justify the search warrant. Still, the judge said that strong evidence was needed and that the warrant was based too much on the illegal findings from the first search. This led the court to agree that the evidence against the accused individuals could not be used, affirming the earlier decision made by the lower court. In short, the court ruled that because the initial search was illegal, it weakened the case against the accused, and thus their evidence should not be included.

Continue ReadingS-2005-657