Patrick v. State, M--75--432
| Decision Date | 27 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. M--75--432,M--75--432 |
| Citation | 545 P.2d 819 |
| Parties | Christopher PATRICK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appellant, Christopher Patrick, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged, tried and convicted in a non-jury trial in the District Court, Oklahoma County, Case No. CRM--75--47, for the offense of Unlawful Possession of Marihuana, in violation of 63 O.S.1971, § 2--402, B 2. His punishment was fixed at a term of one (1) year imprisonment with the same being suspended. From this judgment and sentence he has perfected his timely appeal to this Court.
The State's first witness at trial was Oklahoma City Police Officer Kenneth Linn who testified that on the evening of January 4, 1975, he observed the defendant in a white 1965 Chevrolet traveling 35 miles per hour in a 25 mile per hour zone. After Officer Linn stopped the vehicle, the defendant got out and was approaching the patrol car when he was advised that he was going to be issued a citation for speeding. Before placing the defendant in the patrol car, Officer Linn conducted a 'pat search.' After strenuous objection by the defendant the witness related that he placed the defendant under arrest for a felony committed in his presence and made an inventory search of the defendant's vehicle based on the custodial felony arrest. Officer Linn stated he found marihuana on the floorboard, in the seat and in the console. The defendant was then arrested for possession of marihuana.
Officer Linn then testified that he had received training in the identification of controlled dangerous substances as well as field experience with marihuana, relating the method used to identify the marihuana and further stating that in his opinion the substance found in the defendant's car was marihuana. On cross-examination Officer Linn testified that he conducted an inventory search of the vehicle because the wrecker had been called to impound the vehicle and to protect himself from being subject to suit if anything were later found to be missing from the vehicle.
The State next called Melvin Hett who testified he was a forensic chemist for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. He testified that he performed three tests on the substance found by Officer Linn and from these tests he determined the substance to be Cannabis sativa L, commonly known as marihuana.
The defendant predicates this appeal upon three assignments of error, however, we are of the opinion that only defendant's second assignment of error necessitates discussion. The defendant's second assignment of error asserts that the trial court committed reversible error in failing to sustain defendant's motion to suppress the introduction of the marihuana into evidence for the reason that the illegality of the search had been previously and finally determined in the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tomlin v. State
...an "inventory," its legality still rests on the legality of the arrest which led to the impoundment and inventory. Patrick v. State, 545 P.2d 819, 820 (Okl.Cr.1976). A feigned or counterfeit arrest will not validate an inventory search. Kelly v. State, 607 P.2d 706, 708 (Okl.Cr.1980). If a ......
-
Ray v. Alad Corporation
... ... In August Alad I was dissolved as a corporation after certifying to the Secretary of State that all 'known debts and liabilities have been actually paid' and that its assets had been ... ...
-
Lamb v. State, F--76--920
...departmental policy. See State v. Shorney, Okl.Cr., 524 P.2d 69 (1974); Fruit v. State, Okl.Cr., 528 P.2d 331 (1974); and Patrick v. State, Okl.Cr., 545 P.2d 819 (1976). Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in not submitting proper verdict forms to the jury. Defendant argues t......
-
Kelly v. State, F-78-660
...must be limited to the violation of the altered tag provisions. The State cites this Court's recent decision of Patrick v. State, Okl.Cr., 545 P.2d 819 (1976), as authorizing any impoundment so long as it is subsequent to a valid arrest. Such a broad interpretation of that case is unfounded......