State v. Chakos, 38946

• Decision Date: 18 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. 38946,38946
• Citation: 74 Wn.2d 154,443 P.2d 815
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Joyce Edna CHAKOS, Peter Michael Chakos, and David Hall Coleman, Appellants. The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. James C. WALL, Appellant. The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Paul Howard DAVIS, Appellant. The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Peter Aandahl CHRISTOFFERSON and Christopher John Hawkins, Appellants.

Page 154

74 Wn.2d 154

443 P.2d 815

The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Joyce Edna CHAKOS, Peter Michael Chakos, and David Hall

Coleman, Appellants.

The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. James C. WALL, Appellant.

The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Paul Howard DAVIS, Appellant.

The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Peter Aandahl CHRISTOFFERSON and Christopher John Hawkins, Appellants.

No. 38946.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

July 18, 1968.

Clinton, Moats, Andersen & Fleck, Richard J. Glein, Seattle, for coleman.

Byron D. Coney, Seattle, for other appellants.

Charles O. Carroll, Pros. Atty., Seattle, Thomas A. Stang, Deputy Pros. Atty., for respondent.

HAMILTON, Judge.

This is a consolidation of six separate appeals from convictions for possession of marijuana in violation of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act, RCW 69.33, and, in one case, from a conviction for possession of a dangerous drug (amphetamines), a misdemeanor under the provisions of RCW 69.40.

All appellants were arrested on the same evening at a total of three different locations in the city of Seattle. The convictions obtained in all cases, save that of appellant Wall, were based on evidence seized pursuant to a series of five search warrants (Nos. 0293, 0294, 0295, 0296, and 0297) issued at a single hearing before Justice of the Peace Evangeline Starr on November 5, 1965. The circumstances and conditions giving rise to the issuance of the respective search warrants are outlined and set forth in State v. Walcott, 72 Wash.Dec.2d 947, 435 P.2d 994 (1968), an appeal from the fruits of search warrant No. 0297. On this appeal we are concerned with search warrants Nos. 0294, 0295, and 0296. Search warrant No. 0293 was nonproductive, in that the party involved was acquitted.

The principal assignment of error common to all appellants is that the search warrants here involved were void in that they were procedurally defective and were issued without adequate showing of probable cause. The basis upon which appellants make this assignment of error are fully outlined and set forth in State v. Walcott, supra, and will not be repeated here. We have fully considered this assignment of error as it pertained to search warrant No. 0297 in the Walcott case, and since we find no material or significant variation in the procedure or in the circumstances relating to the issuance of search warrants Nos. 0294, 0295, and 0296, or as pertains to the hearings upon the respective motions to suppress the evidence accumulated pursuant to the search warrants, we adhere to our ruling in the Walcott case. Accordingly, we find this assignment of error to be without substantial merit.

The remaining assignments of error are made by appellants Coleman, Joyce Chakos, and James Wall. These assignments of error revolve about incidents arising out of the search of the premises located at 2303 N.E. 65th Street, Seattle, Washington, pursuant to search warrant No. 0296. In this respect, appellants Coleman and Joyce Chakos challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain their convictions. Appellant Coleman urges, in addition, that he was not fully advised of his rights prior to making certain incriminating statements; and appellant Wall asserts the invalidity of a search of his automobile parked in the public street adjacent to the premises. A brief re sume of the circumstances surrounding the search, arrest, and conviction of these appellants will assist in an understanding of our disposition of these assignments.

The premises located at 2303 N.E. 65th Street, consist of six-room house with a partial basement. The main floor contains a living room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom, and two bedrooms. Some 4 months prior to November 5, 1965, the evening of the search, the premises were rented by the appellants Peter and Joyce Chakos, there being some testimony that Mrs. Chakos negotiated the rental transactions. These appellants thereafter sublet one of the bedrooms to a Mrs. Marjorie Wall, her small daughter, and her friend Robert Ramoy, and the living room to appellant Coleman who occupied it as a bedroom. In addition to the living room, appellant Coleman, who was interested in sculpturing, also had access to and use of the basement where he worked and kept his sculpturing materials.

When the officers executed their search warrants at about 9 p.m., November 5, 1965, Mr. and Mrs. Chakos, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Ramoy, a Mr. Al Moss, and Mrs. Wall and her young daughter were present in the house. With the exception of Mr. Moss, who remained in the kitchen with some of the officers, all of the occupants were assembled in the dining room where they were advised by the officers of their constitutional rights and of the basis for and purpose of the search. The ensuing search revealed three growing marijuana plants and some seeds in the basement, a jar of marijuana seeds in the bedroom occupied by Mrs. Wall and Mr. Ramoy, a jar of marijuana seeds and leaves in the living room, a type of amphetamine (methaphetamine) in the kitchen refrigerator and in the living room, the remains of two marijuana cigarettes, one in the living room and one in the dining room, sundry paraphernalia consisting of hypodermic needles and syringes, a black metal pot, and a pipe in various of the rooms including the living room, and a soot blackened spoon found in appellant Coleman's jacket.

None of the appellants made any incriminating statements during the search, except Mr. Chakos who acknowledge ownership of the marijuana seeds found in Mrs. Wall's bedroom. The next morning, however, appellant Coleman, after again being advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent, admitted that he used marijuana and methaphetamine, the latter by injection. He also permitted inspection of his arms, which carried numerous puncture marks, some of recent origin.

During the course of the search, appellant James Wall came to the house. The purpose of his visit was to see his estranged wife, Mrs. Wall, and his daughter. When he entered the house, he was advised of the nature and purpose of the search being conducted, searched for weapons, advised of his rights, and asked if his automobile could be searched. Although Mr. Wall denied that permission to search his automobile was requested or granted, four officers testified that he freely gave his consent. The search revealed a packet of marijuana in the vehicle.

Appellant Wall was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana, a felony. Appellants Coleman and Joyce Chakos, together with her husband appellant Peter Chakos, were charged with the same offense as well as unlawful possession of a dangerous drug, a misdemeanor. Appellant Wall was tried before a jury and found guilty as charged. Appellants Coleman and Joyce Chakos waived jury trial and were convicted by the court, sitting without a jury, of the crimes of unlawful possession of a dangerous drug and unlawful possession of marijuana, respectively.

Mrs. Chakos...