Rudd v. State, F-81-171
| Decision Date | 06 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. F-81-171,F-81-171 |
| Citation | 649 P.2d 791 |
| Parties | Steve Allen RUDD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Steve Allen Rudd, appellant, was convicted in the District Court of Mayes County of Unlawful Possession of Marijuana With the Intent to Distribute, Case No. CRF-80-98. The appellant waived a jury trial. He was sentenced to three (3) years' imprisonment, and appeals. AFFIRMED.
James E. Wallace, Grove, for appellant.
Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., John F. Cooper, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.
The appellant was convicted of Unlawful Possession of Marijuana With Intent to Distribute, and sentenced to three (3) years' imprisonment. He waived jury trial and was found guilty before the trial judge.
The appellant claims that the marijuana seized from his car was obtained pursuant to an illegal inventory search of his car. It is generally held that vehicle inventory searches conducted pursuant to standard police practices are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, "where the process is aimed at securing or protecting the car and 'its contents' " South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 373, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3099, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). This Court will examine the surrounding facts and circumstances to determine whether the inventory search was reasonable and justified. Magann v. State, 601 P.2d 123 (Okl.Cr.App.1979).
In this case, we find that the inventory search was reasonable. On April 11, 1980, the appellant was involved in a serious automobile accident. Apparently, the appellant had been driving his car and failed to negotiate a curve. The car went over an embankment and flipped over. Two persons were killed. The appellant, Rudd, and another passenger, were seriously injured and taken to the hospital. Subsequently, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol (OHP) towed Rudd's car from the scene and had it impounded at a local salvage yard. The car was impounded at around two o'clock in the morning.
Approximately eight hours after the car had been impounded, Officer Hokit inventoried the appellant's car pursuant to a mandatory OHP policy. Hokit inventoried the entire car and filled out an inventory form listing all the personal items obtained. Upon opening the trunk of the appellant's car, Hokit discovered eight baggies of marijuana.
The appellant contends that the inventory search was improper because of the eight hour delay between the time the car was impounded and the time it was inventoried. He argues that the car was not properly secured during those eight hours. However, the record reveals that Mr. Frailey towed the appellant's car into the impoundment area. The impoundment lot was secured by a six foot chain-link fence and a locked gate. Mr. Frailey is the sole owner and operator of the salvage yard.
Frailey testified that he locked the gate the night of the accident and unlocked it prior to Officer Hokit's inventory. Hokit testified that when he inventoried the car there was no evidence that anyone had tampered with it. He further stated that in order to get inside the trunk he had to use a pry bar because of the damage from the accident. Officer Hokit also related that he did not have an opportunity to inventory the car until the next morning because of the amount of time it took to investigate the scene of the accident. Additionally, he had difficulty in determining the identity of one of the fatalities. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the inventory of the appellant's car was reasonable.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to sustain his demurrer to the State's evidence. Rudd argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had actual knowledge of the presence of the marijuana and possessed an intent to distribute the marijuana. After lodging his demurrer to the State's evidence, the appellant presented evidence in his defense. We find that the appellant has not properly preserved the issue of the demurrer for review by this Court.
This Court has consistently held that a defendant waives his demurrer to the State's evidence once he offers evidence in his own defense. Morrison v. State, 628 P.2d 381 (Okl.Cr.App.1981). Therefore, this Court will determine the issue of sufficiency of the evidence from a review of the record as a whole.
At the trial, the appellant moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State's circumstantial evidence did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. The trial court ruled on this motion and stated that it felt the controlling evidence in the case was introduced when Mr. Rudd took the stand in his own behalf.
The standard of review in a criminal case based entirely on circumstantial evidence is whether the State's evidence tends to exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. However, the circumstantial evidence need not exclude every possibility other than guilt. White v. State, 607 P.2d 713 (Okl.Cr.App.1980). When implementing this standard, we must consider the evidence and its inferences in a light most favorable to the State. Renfro v. State, 607 P.2d 703 (Okl.Cr.App.1980).
Generally, unlawful possession of contraband with an intent to distribute, may be actual or constructive. Miller v. State, 579 P.2d 200 (Okl.Cr.App.1978). Constructive possession may be established by ownership, dominion and control over the contraband. Possession may also be inferred when the contraband is found in a place which is exclusively accessible or used...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Boyd
...was delayed for eight hours and one in which the inventory was postponed until the morning after the arrest. In Rudd v. State, 649 P.2d 791 (Okla.Crim.App.1982), the court upheld the validity of an inventory of an automobile conducted eight hours after its impoundment, given that the office......
-
Duckett v. State
...favorable to the State, and the determination will be based on whether the rational trier of fact could have found guilt. Rudd v. State, 649 P.2d 791, 794 (Okl.Cr.1982). Based on the facts in this case, there was sufficient evidence presented such that the jury could have found that Appella......
-
Marshall v. Jones, No. 05-CV-033-TCK-PJC.
...that he shot anyone with the "intent" to kill. See Dkt. #4. The OCCA rejected this claim on direct appeal, citing Rudd v. State, 649 P.2d 791, 794 (Okla.Crim.App.1982), and finding that the evidence was "sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Appellant, who ran from the sc......
-
Hill v. State
...cocaine and the gun, sufficient to sustain its burden of proof. See Pebworth, 855 P.2d at 607; Carolina, 839 P.2d at 665; Rudd v. State, 649 P.2d 791, 794 (Okl.Cr.1982); Gilreath v. State, 627 P.2d 443, 445 (Okl.Cr.1981); Staples v. State, 528 P.2d 1131, 1133-1135 This is a very close case.......