Gilliland v. State
| Decision Date | 27 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 328 |
| Citation | Gilliland v. State, 466 So.2d 151 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984) |
| Parties | Terry Lee GILLILAND v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. Allen Cook, Andalusia, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Owens, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
A jury found Terry Lee Gilliland guilty of possession of marijuana, a controlled substance, and the court fixed his punishment at imprisonment for six years and imposed a fine of $1,000.00.
According to the undisputed evidence, the small apartment at which appellant lived with his wife, Mrs. Terry Gilliland, and their three-year-old daughter at 402 1/2 Smith Street, Andalusia, was searched pursuant to a valid search warrant.The defendant was not at the home at the time but was working elsewhere in or near Andalusia.Mrs. Gilliland was present at the time of the search and made no protest of the rather thorough search of the apartment consisting of a living room combined with a bedroom on one side and a kitchen and a bathroom on the other side.
The law enforcement authorities executing the search warrant found at various places within the apartment, including the drawers of a chest of drawers in the living room and on the refrigerator in the kitchen, the following items:
Four large bags of plant material identified by an expert witness as marijuana; two other bags of such plant material; two roach clips, described in the testimony as clips to hold marijuana cigarettes, a metal tray with plant material consisting of marijuana therein, two roaches, described as the stubs or butts of partly smoked marijuana cigarettes, one set of scales and plastic bags, and a bottle of two kinds of pills, which according to the undisputed evidence were not controlled substances or illegal drugs and have no material bearing on the issues in the case.
Mrs. Gilliland was arrested and taken to jail on the afternoon the search of the apartment was conducted and soon after the items listed above were seized by the law enforcement authorities.According to the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Jerry Newton, the appellant came to the County Jail about five o'clock that afternoon.He was then processed by virtue of the warrant of arrest that had been issued for him for possession of the marijuana and, according to the testimony of Officer Newton, "approximately thirty to forty-five minutes later" Officer Newton advised him of his rights "according to the Miranda Warning" and he was shown a copy of the receipt for the items that had been seized.Officer Newton's testimony continued as follows:
Mrs. Gilliland was called as a witness by the defendant, but, on advice of her attorney, she declined to testify.
The defendant testified comprehensively to the effect that he was not guilty of the possession of marijuana.A significant part of his testimony is as follows:
During the cross-examination of defendant, he testified:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Bracewell v. State
...question." 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 428 (1957), citing Whitt v. Forbes, 258 Ala. 580, 587, 64 So.2d 77 (1953). See also Gilliland v. State, 466 So.2d 151, 158 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). James Bracewell stated that he did not have any "direct conversation" with the District Attorney. Defense counsel ma......
-
McCray v. State, 1 Div. 149
...name, women's clothes were found in the bedroom, and she was seen and identified at her apartment. The State relies on Gilliland v. State, 466 So.2d 151 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), in arguing that the State did prove a prima facie case. In that case, Gilliland admitted knowledge of the marijuana in ......
-
Allen v. State
...criminal activity, it has been held that the defendant would not be entitled to learn the identity of the informant. Gilliland v. State, 466 So.2d 151 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). In Gilliland, this court, per the Honorable Leigh M. Clark, Retired Circuit Judge, stated as " 'The informer in this case......