Maples v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 268 |
| Citation | 214 So.2d 700,44 Ala.App. 491 |
| Parties | John D. MAPLES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Jas. B. Kierce, Jr., and Augustine Meaher, III, Mobile, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Walter S. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charges the possession of 'Morphine Sulphate.' Appellant was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. He appeals.
For the State Mobile Police Sergeant O. L. Mosley testified that while on routine patrol about eleven a.m., May 29, 1966, he observed defendant and a man named Paul Cazalas at the intersection of Mobile Street and Springhill Avenue. As he approached them he radioed for another police car to come to the scene. While waiting for reinforcements he asked the men for identification. After the arrival of Officers Yates and McNealy, Cazalas handed defendant an amber colored bottle containing white pills. Defendant took the bottle and put it on the window ledge close by. Officer Mosley reached around Cazalas and picked up the bottle. Cazalas then threw another amber colored bottle into the street. The witness retrieved this second bottle.
On cross examination Officer Mosley testified he had known Paul Cazalas for several years and knew he had a police record of narcotic violations. Before he saw the men he had been told 'there was some suspicious actions' and as he approached them he saw that they were 'stepping high, talking to one another and turning around, happy state, and they crossed Springhill Avenue in front of me and same actions.' He was about a block away when he first saw them. He radioed for help because he knew the men and suspected the condition they were in. He reconstructed the encounter in these words:
pocket, but none in defendant's pocket. Cazalas started backing up and said, 'What do you want to know what I got in my pocket for?' And I said, 'Well, you ain't trying to hide something?'
This is about the time Cazalas took the bottle from his pocket and handed it to defendant, who set it on the ledge. Cazalas threw two bottles to the ground. One contained 200 pills and the other had 81. The only thing he saw defendant do was to take the bottle of pills from Cazalas and put it on the ledge. The witness did not have a warrant for the arrest of defendant nor a warrant to search him, and he did not search him.
On redirect examination Officer Mosley testified he had been a police officer for twenty-two years and had had occasion during this period to observe people under the influence of narcotic drugs and alcohol; that it was his opinion defendant and Cazalas were under the influence of alcohol or some type of drug. On recross examination Mosely testified Paul Cazalas was dead, having died from an overdose of narcotics.
Officers McNealy and Yates testified that when they arrived in response to Mosley's call they saw the defendant throw a Cigarette package onto the ground. The package contained three white pills and one Cigarette. All of these articles were turned over to Detective Romagnano.
On cross examination Officer Yates, in response to the question, 'How did Mr. Maples appear to you,' stated: He did not smell liquor on his breath.
Officer McNealy, on cross examination, stated when he reached the scene defendant was 'talking and carrying on.' He was 'acting normal to me.' * * * 'Just like he is now.'
Police Detective Romagnano testified that on May 29, 1966, he received from Officers Mosley, McNealy and Yates two bottles containing white tablets and a Cigarette package containing three tablets. One bottle contained 200 tablets, the other 81 and the Cigarette package, three. He delivered these articles to Dr. Grubbs, a State Toxicologist.
Dr. Nelson E. Grubbs testified he is head of the Mobile division of the State Department of Toxicology; that he received from Detective Romagnano on May 29, 1966, one amber bottle containing 200 white tablets, one amber bottle containing 81 tablets and a Cigarette package containing three white tablets and one Cigarette; that he made a chemical analysis of the tablets; that the tablets in the bottle as well as those in the Cigarette package consisted of Morphine Sulphate and Morphine Sulphate is a narcotic drug.
The only witness offered by defendant was his divorced wife who testified her former husband was an alcoholic and that she knew he was drinking heavily around May 29, 1966, but that she never knew him to use or possess narcotics while she was married to him, and Police Captain Stowe, who testified he had not been requested to take fingerprints from the Cigarette package marked State's exhibit 2.
A motion to suppress the evidence was timely interposed by defendant and denied by the trial court.
After the state had rested defendant moved to exclude the state's evidence on the ground that it was obtained by an illegal search and seizure. This motion was denied by the trial court.
The appellant's first insistence for a reversal of this conviction is that the state's evidence was the by-product of an illegal search and seizure, relying principally on the case of Williams v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C.1961, 237 F.2d 789. The contention is that if there was an arrest before the tablets were thrown to the ground the arrest was without probable cause and hence unlawful; that by virtue of the illegal arrest and because of the fear of an imminent search the defendant threw the evidence to the ground, presenting a state of facts directly within the holding of the Williams case. No facts pertaining to the arrest appear in the Williams case. The opinion states:
'A cigarette package containing capsules which in turn contained contraband narcotics was procured by the officers, who had app...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warren v. State
...cross-examination of a witness to ascertain his interest, bias, prejudice or partiality concerning his testimony. Maples v. State, 44 Ala.App. 491, 214 So.2d 700; Barber v. State, 23 Ala.App. 584, 129 So. 492; Nichols v. State, 276 Ala. 209, 160 So.2d 619. See generally, McElroy, The Law of......
-
Page v. State
...v. State, 52 Ala.App. 501, 294 So.2d 468 (Ala.Crim.App.1973), cert. quashed, 292 Ala. 792, 294 So.2d 471 (Ala.1974); Maples v. State, 44 Ala.App. 491, 214 So.2d 700 (1968); West v. State, 37 Ala.App. 125, 65 So.2d 203, cert. denied, 259 Ala. 5, 65 So.2d 207 (1953); Blackshear v. State, 33 A......
-
Sellers v. State
...be determined by examining the circumstances surrounding the arrest. See Yeager v. State, 281 Ala. 651, 207 So.2d 125; Maples v. State, 44 Ala.App. 491, 214 So.2d 700. After discovering the cut fence and the open window in the building which had been burglarized the police detectives invest......
-
Allen v. State
...record shows was also charged with murder arising from the same shooting incident. The State relies upon the case of Maples v. State, 44 Ala.App. 491, 214 So.2d 700 (1968), which held in part as '. . . It is always permissible to cross examine a witness to ascertain his interest, bias, prej......