Banks v. State
| Decision Date | 20 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 191 |
| Citation | 448 So.2d 973 |
| Parties | Willie Stevenson BANKS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James A. Ward, Dothan, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Martha Gail Ingram, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Convicted of possession of cocaine and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, appellant Willie Stevenson Banks institutes this appeal, raising numerous issues.
The state's evidence tended to show that at approximately 10:25 p.m. on November 20, 1982, the appellant ran into the rear of a parked automobile just around the corner from the Dothan Police Station. John Collier, a police officer leaving the station, ran to the scene of the wreck, as did other officers. He found appellant sitting behind the wheel of the car. Appellant got out of the car; he smelled of alcohol, and had slowed motor responses, causing Officer Collier to conclude he was under the influence of alcohol. Collier looked into the car and saw a .357 Magnum pistol, and a type carrier or holster for a gun, called a gun rug, both lying on the passenger floorboard. On the front seat of the automobile was an open bottle of wine. Collier instructed another policeman, Officer Smith, to get the gun. When the gun and holster were removed, Officer Collier observed "at least five" clear plastic packets or envelopes containing a white powdery substance. Collier took these packets in his possession and kept them until he later turned them over to an investigator, Officer John White. Appellant was taken to jail by Officer Martin, charged with DUI.
At the police station, appellant's personal property was inventoried. In his wallet, appellant had a $2 bill folded in the shape of a square. When it was unfolded to be placed with the appellant's other money, a clear plastic package or envelope containing white powder fell out. This was turned over by Officer Martin to Investigator White.
The appellant's defense was that he had given a ride to two hitchhikers who beat him up. He claimed they gave him the white powdery substance which he put inside his $2 bill in his wallet and they left the other 17 packets of white powdery substance in the car. He explained that he had been on his way to the police station to turn in the white powdery substance, which turned out to be cocaine. As he turned the corner on his way to the station, he said his automobile brakes failed, causing him to strike the parked car.
The jury presumably rejected this story when they found appellant guilty as charged of possession of cocaine. Appellant now challenges the means by which the police officers gathered, secured and maintained the evidence.
Appellant first challenges state's exhibit 1, the $2 bill folded up around the packet of cocaine. The same challenge is leveled at state's exhibit 2, the other 17 packets of cocaine.
Officer White testified that he put exhibits 1 and 2 in the narcotics locker at the police station. It was then testified that Officer Mendheim took the evidence to criminalist Joseph Saloom, who kept it under lock and key when not testing it until he returned it to Mendheim in a sealed condition. Mendheim returned it to the narcotics locker. Officer Martin checked out state's exhibits 1 and 2 for the purpose of the trial. Officer Martin was unsure whether Officers Smith and White or Officers Smith and Collier took the cocaine out of the car. This uncertainty does not reduce the reasonable probability that the evidence is the same as and not substantially different from the way it was at the commencement of the chain of custody. As we have stated in numerous cases and specifically in Sexton v. State, 346 So.2d 1177 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 346 So.2d 1180 (Ala.1977):
"To warrant the reception of an object into evidence against an objection that an unbroken chain of custody has not been shown, it is not necessary that it be proved to an absolute certainty, but only to a reasonable probability, that the object is the same as, and not substantially different from, the object as it existed at the commencement of the chain."
No error was committed in this respect.
Appellant contends that the cocaine was illegally seized because the police had no right to move the gun and holster under which the cocaine was found. We disagree.
While the appellant failed to preserve this issue, the facts are clear that when the police moved the gun and holster, Banks was in their custody, whether or not the actual words "You are under arrest" were said to him. He was certainly not free to leave the scene.
When police officers who arrest a driver for DUI observe a pistol and holster on the floorboard of the perpetrator's car, they are justified in picking them up and moving them. In this instance, the appellant's car was towed in and an inventory search was conducted of the rest of the car. To leave the weapon where it was would have been dubious police practice. Of course, when the gun and holster were picked up, the packets of white powder were clearly visible. There is no reason to believe that the officers could have foreseen that they would be there. The police had a right to be where they were, and the intrusion in moving the gun and holster was justified. The discovery of the drugs was inadvertent. Clear plastic packets containing a white powdery substance constitute evidence of wrongdoing. See Myers v. State, 431 So.2d 1342 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), cert. quashed, Ex Parte Myers, 431 So.2d 1346 (Ala.1983); Gaines v. State, 429 So.2d 630 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).
Appellant next contends that when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. State
...was not error. Morgan v. State, 568 So.2d 427 (Ala.Cr.App.1990); Lee v. State, 562 So.2d 657 (Ala.Cr.App.1989); Banks v. State, 448 So.2d 973 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Hill v. State, 409 So.2d 943 The appellant next argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on evidence of flight. T......
-
Smith v. State
...; Hart v. State, 612 So.2d 520, 529–30 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 612 So.2d 536 (Ala.1992). In fact, the court in Banks v. State, 448 So.2d 973, 977 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), stated that such a charge correctly states the law and the duty of the jury and should be given in every case in which the d......
-
Lee v. State, 6 Div. 719
...implying that his testimony was untruthful and deprived him of the right to a fair trial. This Court does not agree. In Banks v. State, 448 So.2d 973 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), this Court addressed the propriety of a charge nearly identical to that in the present case. In affirming the judgment of ......
-
Bell v. State, 5 Div. 784
...and that the items were in substantially the same condition as they were when he first found them in appellant's car. Banks v. State, 448 So.2d 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), citing Sexton v. State, 346 So.2d 1174 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 346 So.2d 1180 (Ala.1977), held " 'To warrant the re......