Lewis v. State, CR-89-1035
| Decision Date | 28 June 1991 |
| Docket Number | CR-89-1035 |
| Citation | 589 So.2d 758 |
| Parties | Stephanie Leigh LEWIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James Byrd, Mobile, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Jack W. Willis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was indicted for the unlawful possession of a controlled substance. She entered a plea of not guilty and moved to suppress evidence seized in a search conducted when she was arrested. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. After preserving her right to appeal the ruling on the motion, the appellant stipulated that the State would prove a prima facie case of illegal possession of diazepam. The court sentenced the appellant to 2 years' imprisonment, the sentence to be split with 30 days to serve and the remainder on probation. The court also ordered her to pay $25.00 to the Crime Victims' Fund and to pay court costs.
The appellant's residence was searched and the diazepam was seized pursuant to a search warrant. The affidavit on which the warrant was based stated: "That within the last seventy-two hours, a reliable, confidential informant advised this affiant that said informant had been at the above-described residence and observed a quantity of powder cocaine." At the suppression hearing, the trial court asked the affiant, "did you tell [the issuing magistrate] anything other than what is set out in your affidavit?" The appellant responded, "I believe [he] asked me a few questions, but I don't recall." He later stated, "He might have asked me some questions about the informant but, like I say, I can't recall an exact question." He further testified, The affiant then told the trial judge that the phrase "within the last seventy-two hours" in the affidavit meant "from the time the informant was in the residence." He stated,
The appellant contends that the affidavit on which the search warrant was based is deficient because it does not state when the cocaine was seen at the appellant's residence by the informant. She contends that a search under a warrant issued on an affidavit alleging an undated observation is unreasonable.
The State argues that the statement of the affiant is a typographical error to which the "good faith" exception of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984), should apply. The State contends that the assumption that the issuing judge was made aware of all information establishing probable cause should suffice to invoke the good faith exception. The State also argues that the oral testimony of the affiant is sufficient to cure the defective indictment. The arguments of the State are without merit....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lyons
...at 396–97.4 ¶ 18 Nelms and Bauer are not isolated cases. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals followed Nelms in Lewis v. State, 589 So.2d 758, 759 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (holding that a nearly identically worded affidavit did not state when the informant observed drugs on the premises). The A......
-
Bolden v. State
...arguing that the affidavit underlying the search warrant was constitutionally deficient, McIntosh relies on Lewis v. State, 589 So.2d 758 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), and Nelms v. State, 568 So.2d 384 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). In [Ex parte] Green [, 15 So.3d 489, 492 (Ala.2008) ], a case that is factual......
-
Cochran v. State
...the warrant was issued. Ex parte Green, 15 So. 3d 489 (Ala. 2008). Green discussed this Court's prior decisions in Lewis v. State, 589 So. 2d 758 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991), Nelms v. State, 568 So. 2d 384 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990), and Thomas v. State, 353 So. 2d 54 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977), regardi......
-
Cochran v. State
...time the warrant was issued. Ex parte Green, 15 So.3d 489 (Ala.2008). Green discussed this Court's prior decisions in Lewis v. State, 589 So.2d 758 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), Nelms v. State, 568 So.2d 384 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), and Thomas v. State, 353 So.2d 54 (Ala.Crim.App.1977), regarding the su......