Clair v. State, 2002-KA-00679-COA.
| Decision Date | 13 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2002-KA-00679-COA.,2002-KA-00679-COA. |
| Citation | 845 So.2d 733 |
| Parties | Randy Glenn CLAIR, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee. |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
Edward D. Lancaster, Houston, attorney for appellant. Office of the Attorney General, by W. Glenn Watts, attorney for appellee.
Before McMILLIN, C.J., LEE and IRVING, JJ.
LEE, J., for the court.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 1. On March 22, 2002, a jury in the Circuit Court of Chickasaw County found Randy Glenn Clair guilty of one count of manufacture of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and one count of possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. Clair was sentenced to thirty years with fifteen years suspended for the manufacture count and eight years for the possession count, with the sentences to run concurrently and in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. From this conviction, Clair appeals to this Court asserting the following issues: (1) the lower court erred in denying Clair's motion to suppress evidence; (2) the lower court erred by not allowing the jurors to take the complete indictment into the jury room for their deliberation; and (3) the lower court erred in admitting jury instructions from the prosecution five minutes prior to submitting the instructions to the jury.
FACTS
¶ 2. On April 7, 2001, Randy Clair attempted to evade a nighttime roadblock set up in Chickasaw County. According to the officers at the roadblock, Clair slowed down as he approached the roadblock. Clair then turned off his headlights, turned his car around, and sped off in the other direction. The police then chased Clair back to his house, where Clair proceeded to get out of the car and go into his house. One of the officers saw Clair toss items from his car and, once he went into the house, toss items from there as well. The police also noted the strong smell of ether around the residence and the car. One of the officers noticed cans of ether, glass containers, and hoses, among other items, in the back of Clair's car in plain view. There was also a cooler in the back of the car containing more ether and glass jars filled with liquids. Numerous cans of ether were also lying in the yard. The officers, after seeing these chemicals, suspected that a crystal methamphetamine lab was on the premises.
¶ 3. At that point Clair was handcuffed and told that there was probable cause for a search of his residence and surroundings for methamphetamine. Clair was then instructed that they could wait for a search warrant or Clair could consent to the search. Clair signed a consent form. Although a sheriff testified that he told Clair that they would search his house and the premises, the search consent form is blank as to the specific search area. The house, a shed, and the yard were searched. Among the items found were pseudoephedrine pills, lithium batteries, scales, rock salt, bottles of "Heet," a jar with cold pills soaking in alcohol, a pipe for inhaling methamphetamine, baggies containing small amounts of methamphetamine, a gallon sprayer containing anhydrous ammonia, sulfuric acid, coffee filters with traces of methamphetamine, and denatured alcohol.
¶ 4. In determining whether evidence should be suppressed, a trial court's findings of fact are not disturbed on appeal absent a finding that the "trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard, committed manifest error, or made a decision contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence." Taylor v. State, 733 So.2d 251(¶ 18) (Miss.1999).
¶ 5. With his first issue, Clair contends that the lower court should have granted his motion to suppress all evidence found during the search of his residence and surrounding area. Specifically, Clair claims that he did not voluntarily consent to the search of his residence and any evidence obtained should be excluded as the result of an illegal search. Clair also believes that the consent to search form, which he erroneously refers to as a search warrant, was not specific as to what area was to be searched.
¶ 6. The United States Supreme Court has stated that when determining whether consent to a warrantless search was given voluntarily, the totality of the circumstances must be examined. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). The Mississippi Supreme Court later adopted that standard saying that:
As a consequence of adopting the voluntariness for consent searches, the [United States Supreme] Court concluded that "while the subject's knowledge of a right to refuse is a factor to be taken into account, the prosecution is not required to demonstrate such knowledge as a prerequisite to establishing a voluntary consent." That is, consent may be established without showing that the police warned the consenting party of his Fourth Amendment rights or that he was otherwise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...an incorrect legal standard, committed manifest error, or made a decision contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.'" Clair v. State, 845 So.2d 733, 734-35(¶ 4) (Miss. Ct.App.2003) (quoting Taylor v. State, 733 So.2d 251, 255(¶ 18) C. The Alleged Fourth Amendment Violation ¶ 10. ......
-
Harrell v. State
...an incorrect legal standard, committed manifest error, or made a decision contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” Clair v. State, 845 So.2d 733, 734–35 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2003).DISCUSSION ¶ 6. Harrell contends that the investigative stop was an illegal seizure and that any evi......
-
Trejo v. State , 2008–KA–02133–COA.
...legal standard, committed manifest error, or made a decision contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.” Id. (quoting Clair v. State, 845 So.2d 733, 734–35 (¶ 4) (Miss.Ct.App.2003)). ¶ 9. The United States Supreme Court, in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30–31, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.......
-
Pratt v. State, 2002-KA-01584-COA.
...the court will not entertain a request for additional instruction or instructions, which have not been pre-filed." In Clair v. State, 845 So.2d 733, 736 (Miss.Ct. App.2003), this Court stated that without a showing of prejudice to the defendant, failure to pre-file instructions was harmless......