Bedell v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 31 March 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 257 Ark. 895,521 S.W.2d 200 |
| Parties | Hoyle Bruce BEDELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 74--150. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Bon McCourtney & Associates by Stephen R. Bigger and W. F. Webster, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by Robert A. Newcomb, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The appellant, Hoyle Bruce Bedell, was charged by information with the crime of manufacturing marijuana in that he 'did unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously grow and manufacture marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.).' Upon conviction at a jury trial he was sentenced to six years in the penitentiary and fined $3,000.
On appeal to this court Bedell has designated the following points he relies on for reversal:
'I. The initial warrantless and unconsented search by government authorities, or ranging, of the defendant's farm lands beyond view from public roads was a trespass, constituting an illegal act which tainted all evidence flowing and resulting from this trespass as 'fruit of the poisonous tree,' and the court erred in overruling defendant's motion to suppress evidence.
II. The subsequent search warrant issued pursuant to the initial warrantless searches was limited to search of the defendant's curtilage and residence, and a warrantless contemporaneous search of the defendant's three hundred six (306) acre farm was unauthorized, and the defendant's fourth amendment right should be recognized to extend to adjacent fenced farm lands contiguous to one's residence.
III. The court erred by fatally prejudicing the jury in admitting evidence regarding defendant's possession and use of marijuana given the present circumstances of the defendant's procedural severance of the charges of (1) manufacturing marijuana and (2) possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, and in view of the court's refusal to give defendant's jury instruction number ten (10).
IV. The court erred in refusing defendant's proposed jury instruction number ten (10) which properly described the scope of the statutory definition of 'manufacture."
The facts appear as follows: The appellant owned a 306 acre hill farm in Randolph County and lived in a house adjacent to the highway on the front or east side of the property. Much of the farm was in timber with small cleared areas near the middle of the west or back side of the tract of land. The fields or cleared areas were surrounded by timber with especially heavy timber and underbrush lying north of the cleared areas.
In September, 1973, the sheriff of Randolph County obtained information that marijuana might be growing on the appellant's land so he and one of his deputies entered the tract through heavy timber at the northwest corner of the tract and first found what appeared to be a single marijuana plant growing in a cleared area, referred to in the testimony as field No. 1. The officers returned to the area a few days later and found 17 plants in a second area; 27 plants in a third area, and 76 plants growing in still another cleared area. All the plants were in a state of cultivation with sawdust and what appeared to be fertilizer having been placed around them. The growing plants were located by following plastic pipes running from what was described as a small holding pond near a newly drilled water well and running to the area where the marijuana plants were found. The officers found the 76 plants in field No. 4 by following a hose which was attached to a pump installed in a dug well or cistern at an old house place on the property. A plastic line also ran from this well in an easterly direction past a sawdust pile at an old sawmill set and then on toward the house where Bedell lived. The sheriff and his deputy confiscated the growing marijuana and preserved it in a black plastic bag, later introduced into evidence as state's exhibit No. 1. The sheriff testified that the marijuana plants were planted or set out in 'hills' and that he observed hills in the four cleared areas where no plants were then growing.
On the basis of the information thus obtained, the sheriff obtained a search warrant and he and his deputies searched Mr. Bedell's house where they found a pillowcase containing marijuana; a glass bottle or jar containing marijuana cigarette butts; a plastic box containing marijuana cigarette butts, and a paper bag containing marijuana. These items, together with the plants taken from the fields, were introduced into evidence.
Points I & II. We agree with the state that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of persons, houses, papers and effects and does not extend to open fields and forested areas. See Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 44 S.Ct. 445, 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924). Consequently we find no merit in points I & II.
Points III & IV. The appellant's third assignment, as designated, also includes his fourth assignment. We find no merit to the first part of the appellant's third assignment. We gather from the argument in appellant's brief that he may have been charged in a separate case with possession of marijuana with the intent to deliver, but there is no evidence that the jury was made aware of such additional charge. The appellant was being tried on the charge of manufacturing marijuana. The 121 growing marijuana plants were discovered in, and obtained from, fields on the appellant's land some distance from the house where he lived and, there was testimony indicating that the fields contained numerous hills where plants had been set or grown. The marijuana plants were all surrounded by sawdust and a large sawdust pile was located near the center of appellant's tract of land. A new well had been drilled on the back side of the appellant's property with plastic pipe running to the area where marijuana plants were being cultivated. A gasoline pump with hose connected was found installed in a well or cistern on appellant's property. The hose from the pump ran to the area where the 76 marijuana plants were located, and a hardware merchant from Missouri testified that he sold the pump to the appellant. A filling station operator and gasoline motor mechanic from Missouri testified that he repaired the pump for the appellant. The sheriff testified, under cross-examination by the appellant's attorney, that it was his understanding the appellant had not lived on his property but a few months. So we conclude that the marijuana found in the appellant's house was strong circumstantial evidence that it was he who was growing the marijuana being cultivated on his farm and that it was admissible in evidence for that purpose.
We now come to the trial court's refusal to give appellant's Instruction #10. The Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 82--2601--82--2638 (Supp.1973), is an overall Act pertaining to all of the many controlled substances including marijuana. Section 82--2601(m) reads as follows:
'(m) 'Manufacture' means the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly be extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container, except that this term does not include the preparation or compounding of a controlled substance by an individual for his own use or the preparation, compounding, packaging, or labeling of a controlled substance:
(1) by a practitioner as an incident to his administering or dispensing of a controlled substance in the course of professional practice; or
(2) by a practitioner or by his authorized agent under his supervision for the purpose of, or as an incident to, research, teaching, or chemical analysis and not for sale.' (Emphasis ours).
The trial court instructed the jury in part as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oliver v. United States Maine v. Thornton
...as that term is used in construing the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Pruitt, 464 F.2d 494 (CA9 1972); Bedell v. State, 257 Ark. 895, 521 S.W.2d 200 (1975). 12 The clarity of the open fields doctrine that we reaffirm today is not sacrificed, as the dissent suggests, by our re......
-
State v. Martwick
...that defendant had no expectation of privacy from a walk-on search in the wooded area behind his house. See also Bedell v. State, 521 S.W.2d 200, 201 (Ark. 1975); State v. Webb, 943 P.2d 52 (Idaho ¶ 58. The dissent voices concern for a property owner's privacy, but it fails to articulate a ......
-
State v. Weigand
...1930); land posted with no trespassing signs, McDowell v. United States, 383 F.2d 599 (8th Cir. 1967); wooded areas, Bedell v. State, 257 Ark. 895, 521 S.W.2d 200 (1975), Cornman v. State, 156 Ind.App. 112, 294 N.E.2d 812 (1973); vacant lots in urban areas, State v. Stavricos, 506 S.W.2d 51......
-
Rainey & Harton v. Hartness
...See, e.g., Sanders v. State, 264 Ark. 433, 572 S.W.2d 397 (1978); Wyss v. State, 262 Ark. 502, 558 S.W.2d 141 (1977); Bedell v. State, 257 Ark. 895, 521 S.W.2d 200 (1975), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931 (1977). Additionally, Rule 14.2 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: "An of......