Crabtree v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-1083A377,2-1083A377 |
| Citation | 479 N.E.2d 70 |
| Parties | Norma CRABTREE, Darrell Crabtree, and Samuel Clinton Crabtree, Appellants (Defendants), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Stephen W. Dillon, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., John D. Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendants-appellants S. Clinton Crabtree (Clinton) and Norma J. Crabtree (Norma) appeal their court convictions of two counts each of possession of a controlled substance, a class D felony, 1 and defendant-appellant Darrell Crabtree (Darrell) contests his court conviction of possession of paraphernalia, a class D felony, 2 alleging the trial court erred by denying a motion to dismiss and by denying a motion to suppress evidence [hereinafter the defendants are collectively referred to as the Crabtrees]. In addition, Darrell challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction.
We affirm.
On May 4, 1982, Indianapolis Police Department Detectives Barbara Gilberti-Schneider (Gilberti-Schneider) and Daniel Harvey (Harvey) along with other members of the Indianapolis Police Department and the Marion County Prosecutor's Office executed a search warrant for room 111 of a motel located in Indianapolis. The four occupants of this room were Clinton, Norma, Darrell, and Margaret Crabtree (Margaret), Darrell's wife. The evidence reveals A search of the motel suite revealed a bottle of desoxyn in a sink near the bathroom, and a quantity of the same drug was found in Clinton's pant's pocket. The police also discovered a cigarette lighter encrusted with the residue of preludin along with a warm "cooker", a device used to liquify drugs prior to injection, under the bed. A hypodermic syringe was stuck into a pillow on the bed.
that one officer knocked and announced that the police were present as another officer used a passkey to open the door to the room. Upon entry, Clinton and Norma were found in the living room area of the motel suite, which was one room divided into a living area, bathroom, and bedroom. The officers observed Darrell attempt to close a sliding door between the living area and the bedroom; however, the officers rushed the door and were able to obtain entry. Darrell then attempted to escape via a window, and Margaret, a juvenile, tossed some objects under the bed upon which she was lying.
On September 9, 1982, the Crabtrees filed a motion for disclosure of exculpatory evidence and a motion to suppress evidence. At a hearing on October 7, 1982, Clinton and Norma testified the officers did not knock and announce their presence before entering the room. Gilberti-Schneider and Harvey testified that the police did in fact knock and announce simultaneously with the use of the passkey to enter the motel room. Moreover, the officers testified they had previously executed a search warrant on the same premises on April 21, 1982. Before executing that warrant, the officers had obtained a passkey from the motel office and walked past the room in an attempt to look in the window and determine who was present. As they did so, Norma observed them and rapidly retreated from the window towards the back of the room. Fearing destruction of contraband, the officers utilized the passkey to enter the suite. Upon entering, they found Norma heading towards the toilet and a quantity of drugs nearby.
The court overruled the Crabtrees' motion to suppress the evidence from the May 4, 1982 search, but did grant their motion for production of exculpatory evidence.
On January 6, 1983, the Crabtrees filed a motion to dismiss, based on the asserted failure of the State to comply with their discovery request. This motion was later overruled.
The cause proceeded to trial before the court on June 17, 1983. In addition to testimony which mirrored that of the October, 1982 suppression hearing, Margaret took the stand and testified that she, as a juvenile, had pled guilty to possession of the paraphernalia. She asserted that she was preparing to inject a drug into her body when the police entered the room, that Darrell was asleep on the bed, and that Darrell had no knowledge of her activities. Although the Crabtrees were found not guilty of conspiracy charges, Clinton and Norma were found guilty of two counts each of possession of a controlled substance, and Darrell was adjudged guilty of possession of paraphernalia.
The Crabtrees' motion to correct error was denied on September 20, 1983, and this appeal ensued.
The Crabtrees posit three issues for our consideration:
1. Did the trial court err by denying the motion to dismiss?
2. Did the trial court err by denying the motion to suppress?
3. Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Darrell's conviction?
ISSUE ONE--Did the trial court err by denying the motion to dismiss?
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS--The Crabtrees maintain the State failed to respond to their discovery request and advise them of exculpatory evidence in the form of a legitimate prescription for some of the drugs which were the basis for the illegal possession charges. This failure to provide exculpatory evidence, they claim, constitutes denial of a fair trial.
The State responds that the Crabtrees have failed to show any noncompliance and that the allegations of exculpatory evidence are unsworn statements by defense counsel which, even if true, do not represent noncompliance on the part of the State.
CONCLUSION--The trial court did not err by denying the motion to dismiss because the Crabtrees have shown neither an abuse by the State nor prejudice resulting from the State's action.
The Indiana Supreme Court has addressed the parameters of our inquiry into this matter:
Wagner v. State (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 476, 485 (emphasis supplied); see also Pedigo v. State (1982), Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 347; Long v. State (1982), Ind.App., 431 N.E.2d 875.
Here, the Crabtrees say the State did not reveal the existence of legal prescriptions for a seized drug in the discovery material turned over to the Crabtrees on October 14, 1982, pursuant to court order. Although included in Crabtrees' brief, this material is not in the record before this court for review. In any event, Crabtrees' counsel asserts he discovered these items when he went to the Indianapolis Police Department headquarters in December, 1982 to review the discovery materials in the custody of Gilberti-Schneider. Assuming arguendo that the State did not advise the Crabtrees of this material until December, we fail to see any prejudice to their case. The Crabtrees assert they discovered the purportedly exculpatory material in December, 1982. The trial was held June 17, 1983, and the Crabtrees have not shown how any prejudice accrued to their cause as they knew of this mitigating material six months prior to their trial. Furthermore, the Crabtrees' counsel vigorously interrogated Gilberti-Schneider about the prescriptions at trial. In so deciding, we remind the State of its unquestioned duty to determine the existence of discovery materials and to expeditiously make the same available to defendants. See Judge Shields's concurring opinion in Jacobs v. State (1982), Ind.App., 436 N.E.2d 1176, 1178.
ISSUE TWO--Did the trial court err by denying the motion to suppress?
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS--The Crabtrees complain that the police failed to follow the "knock and announce" rule in serving the search warrant on May 4, 1982. They say the record is devoid of any evidence establishing exigent circumstances which would excuse the failure of the police to comply with the knock and announce rule, so the motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted.
The State counters the police did in fact knock and announce as required and, in any event, the record does support a finding of exigent circumstances to excuse any purported violation of the knock and announce principle.
CONCLUSION--Exigent circumstances existed which excused any failure to comply with the knock and announce rule; thus, the denial of the motion to suppress was proper.
The courts of Indiana apply the knock and announce rule to the execution of arrest and search warrants. State v. Dusch (1972), 259 Ind. 507, 289 N.E.2d 515. "The rule requires that police knock and announce their authority and purpose before forcing entry into a home." Davenport v. State (1984), Ind., 464 N.E.2d 1302, 1305. The policy behind this rule is clear. The knocking requirement alerts the inhabitants to the presence of persons seeking entrance. The announcement of authority requirement identifies those seeking entrance as officers of the law. The announcement of purpose requirement is a recognition of the right of the dwelling's inhabitants to protection against unreasonable search and seizure and to enjoyment of the privacy of their abode. However, adherence to this rule is not without limitation. As Justice Hunter explained in Davenport:
Id. (Citations omitted) (emphasis supplied). The court further explained that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stevens, 92-1557-CR
...v. Anonymous, 40 Conn.Supp. 20, 480 A.2d 600, 605 (1984); Indiana v. Dusch, 259 Ind. 507, 289 N.E.2d 515, 518 (1972); Crabtree v. State, 479 N.E.2d 70, 74 (Ind.App.1985); Illinois v. Ouellette, 78 Ill.2d 511, 36 Ill.Dec. 666, 667-68, 401 N.E.2d 507, 510 (1979); Massachusetts v. Gomes, 408 M......
-
Maravilla v. US
...v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1302, 1305 (Ind.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1043, 105 S.Ct. 529, 83 L.Ed.2d 416 (1984); Crabtree v. State, 479 N.E.2d 70, 73-74 (Ind.Ct.App.1985); Ind. Code Ann. § 35-33-2-3(b) (West 1986). Indiana recognizes an exception to this general rule in cases where announceme......
-
Lacey v. State
...33 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), trans. not sought; Willingham v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. not sought; Crabtree v. State, 479 N.E.2d 70 (Ind.Ct.App.1985), trans. not sought; Cannon v. State, 414 N.E.2d 578 (Ind.Ct.App.1980), trans. not sought. In recent years, this Court has ex......
-
Lewis v. State
...admission of ownership of the contraband, flight, proximity to contraband in plain view, and furtive conduct. See Crabtree v. State (1985), Ind.App., 479 N.E.2d 70; Snyder, supra; Parson, supra, at 873 (Shields, J. dissenting). However, a defendant's mere presence where drugs are located or......