State v. Boykins, 53396
| Decision Date | 12 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 53396,53396,2 |
| Citation | 434 S.W.2d 484 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. James E. BOYKINS, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Norman H. Anderson, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Peter J. Maniscalco, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Clayton, for respondent.
Daniel P. Reardon, Jr., St. Louis, for appellant.
BARRETT, Commissioner.
The appellant, James E. Boykins, with a prior conviction of possession of a narcotic drug, has again been found guilty of possession of a narcotic drug, 7.32 grams of marijuana, and sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. RSMo 1959, §§ 195.010(5, 17), 195.020, 195.200.
The circumstances were that Officers Richmond and Isaiah Brown, assigned to the narcotic squad, were parked in an unmarked automobile in the 6000 block of Bartmer 'watching the narcotic traffic (persons and automobiles in general) in that area.' They saw Boykins come out of a house, enter a red Thunderbird automobile and drive away. They saw that he had 'no city sticker' at the appropriate place on his windshield and at 5869 Etzel signalled to him by tapping the horn and waving and 'pulled him to the curb.' But, according to the officers, 'just before he pulled to the curb, we noticed the left door, with him driving, and holding with the right hand, we noticed the left door open, and we observed something drop to the ground from the rear as we pulled in behind him, and I (Richmond) got out of the car immediately, and retrieved this packet, which was in a brown manila envelope.' Richmond opened the envelope 'and that's when I observed inside this green vegetablelike material resembling marijuana.' And so Officer Richmond said, the defendant Boykins made no statement and refused to talk, but 'after seeing and believing that it was marijuana, I placed the defendant under arrest for possession of marijuana, and then I also questioned him concerning the city vehicle license that was not on the windshield of his automobile.' Both officers testified positively that the manila envelope was on the pavement, between the curbline and the automobile where the defendant had dropped it when Richmond picked it up. Police chemist Cordell Brown tested the material in the envolope and it contained 7.32 grams of marijuana. In passing it should be said that these circumstances support the charge and warrant the jury's finding of Boykins' guilt of possessing a narcotic drug. State v. Small, Mo., 423 S.W.2d 750.
Boykins denied that he ever saw or possessed the envelope and its contents--he said that the only time he ever saw it was 'momentarily when Brown had it in his hand.' He denied throwing the package from the automoile and claimed that their only conversation related to the city sticker which he said he in fact had but had not attached to the windshield.
In these circumstances appellant's counsel say that defendant 'was arrested prior to the time he 'dropped' the package.' They point to the statutory definition of an arrest, 'by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise' (RSMo 1959, § 544.180) and say that in pulling in to the curb and stopping on signal he was arrested. Therefore it is argued that his subsequent arrest for possession of marijuana, the officers having no warrant, was without probable cause, illegal and entitled him to the suppression of the marijuana. In short, appellant contends that the circumstances of this case fall within and are governed by State v. Young, Mo., 425 S.W.2d 177; Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688; Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S.Ct. 168, 4 L.Ed.2d 134; Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed.2d 142, and, it may be added, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, and Ker v. State of California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726, all cases in which there was an unlawful arrest, an illegal search and seizure, some of them in motor vehicles, and new trials because of the introduction of the illegally seized evidence.
It is not necessary to discuss these leading cases in detail and factually distinguish them, the Beck, Henry and Rios cases have been distinguished in several of the Missouri cases hereinafter cited. Unlike the circumstances here, in State v. Young the officers, after erroneously stoppin a motor vehicle for failure to display a license plate, saw two screwdrivers and an electric drill on the rear floor of the automoile and for that reason searched the automoile's trunk in which other tools were found. Following Mapp v. Ohio and the Henry case it was held that there was no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Quinn, 38799
...officer sees a person "drop evidence" and the officer seizes it, State v. Hall, 534 S.W.2d 508, 510 (Mo.App.1976), State v. Boykins, 434 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Mo.1968), State v. Baines, 394 S.W.2d 312, 315-316 (Mo.1965), cert. den. 384 U.S. 992, 86 S.Ct. 1900, 16 L.Ed.2d 1008, State v. Jefferson......
-
State v. Berry, 61750
...property, dropped during a chase, and it is found, he cannot claim an unconstitutional invasion of his rights. State v. Boykins, 434 S.W.2d 484, 485-486 (Mo. 1968); State v. Hill, 419 S.W.2d 46, 48 (Mo. 1967); State v. Jefferson, 391 S.W.2d 885, 888 (Mo. 1965); State v. Hall, 534 S.W.2d 508......
-
State v. Rogers, 40039
...officer sees a person "drop evidence" and the officer seizes it, State v. Hall, 534 S.W.2d 508, 510 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Boykins, 434 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Mo.1968); State v. Baines, 394 S.W.2d 312, 315-316 (Mo.1965), cert. den. 384 U.S. 992, 86 S.Ct. 1900, 16 L.Ed.2d 1008; State v. Jefferson......
-
State v. Cage, 54449
...888, and State v. Owens, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 248, 252; and the later cases of State v. Gailes, Mo., 428 S.W.2d 555, 558, and State v. Boykins, Mo., 434 S.W.2d 484, 486. There was here no search for articles not in plain view of the officers. State v. Boykins, supra. Even if there were, the evid......