Mays v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 21 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 308 Ark. 39,822 S.W.2d 846 |
| Parties | Woodrow MAYS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 91-200. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Robert N. Jeffrey, Sheridan, for appellant.
Gil Dudley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
On March 15, 1991, Benton Municipal Judge, Sandra Partridge, issued a search warrant based on two written affidavits and the oral testimony of informants Terry and Lori Ward. The warrant commanded a search of appellant, Woodrow Mays, and of a Benton motel room where the appellant was living. During the search officers discovered six quarter grams of methamphetamine.
Mays was convicted of multiple counts of possession and delivery of a controlled substance and, as a habitual offender, sentenced to consecutive terms totaling eighty years. On appeal Mays asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence.
Ark.R.Crim.P. 13.1(b) provides that "the application for a search warrant ... shall be supported by one (1) or more affidavits of recorded testimony under oath before a judicial officer...." Subsection (c) of the rule states, in part, "if sworn testimony alone is offered in support of the application, such testimony shall be recorded pursuant to subsection (b) hereof".
In this case, both sworn testimony and affidavits of Terry and Lori Ward were taken, however, the affidavits were later misplaced. At the suppression hearing, Judge Partridge testified that on March 15, 1991, in her capacity as Municipal Judge she issued a search warrant for the appellant's person and the motel room. She stated that she put Terry and Lori Ward under oath and recorded their testimony. She also testified that the Wards executed two written affidavits at that time. At the suppression hearing the tape recording of the proceedings was received in evidence and played for the trial court. However, it was not made a part of the record in this appeal.
The appellant argues that the trial court should have suppressed evidence taken pursuant to the search warrant because of the failure to provide the affidavits. When the accused attacks the validity of a search warrant and the affidavit upon which the warrant was based, the state has the burden of producing the warrant and affidavit or of following approved procedure for establishing their contents. Schneider v. State, 269 Ark. 245, 599 S.W.2d 730 (1980). The burden of showing the invalidity of the warrant then shifts to the appellant....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Layton v. State
...ruling for our review. As this [8] argument is raised for the first time on appeal, it is not preserved for our review. Mays v. State, 308 Ark. 39, 822 S.W.2d 846 (1992). We point out that while it is true that being convicted of a crime for which one was not charged is a violation of due p......
-
Middleton v. State
...no ruling for our review. As this argument is raised for the first time on appeal, it is not preserved for our review. Mays v. State, 308 Ark. 39, 822 S.W.2d 846 (1992). We point out that while it is true that being convicted of a crime for which one was not charged is a violation of due pr......
-
Baker v. State, CR
...817 (1992). We will not consider on appeal issues that the trial judge did not have a fair opportunity to consider. Mays v. State, 308 Ark. 39, 822 S.W.2d 846 (1992). In the case of requests for probation or a suspended sentence this requires appellant to cite the appropriate statute under ......