State v. Espinoza
| Decision Date | 04 August 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 20212,20212 |
| Citation | 723 P.2d 420 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James B. ESPINOZA and Darla Espinoza, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Steven L. Hansen, Murray, for defendants and appellants.
David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Dave B. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
This is an appeal by defendants from a nonjury conviction of possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute for value, a third degree felony, in violation of U.C.A., 1953, § 58-37-8(a)(ii). Defendants raise three issues: (1) insufficiency of the evidence, (2) improper admission of expert opinion testimony, and (3) insufficiency of the probable cause statement to support the issuance of the search warrant.
On December 5, 1983, Roosevelt City police officers arranged a marijuana buy through a confidential informant. After searching the informant, they gave him $50 (two twenties and a ten) and watched him enter defendants' home. The informant returned with a bag of marijuana. After obtaining a search warrant, the officers searched defendants' home and arrested them.
together with the two twenties and a ten in Darla Espinoza's apron, the previous sale to the confidential informant, and Darla Espinoza's statements when the police searched the house all support defendants' convictions.
Defendants claims that the trial court erred in allowing Officer Olsen to give his opinion on whether defendants possessed the drug paraphernalia and the four and one-half ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute the marijuana for value. The record reflects, however, that the court did not permit the officer to give his opinion regarding defendants' purpose in possessing the marijuana. Qualification of a person as an expert witness under the Utah Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, is in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Locke, 688 P.2d 464 (Utah 1984); see State v. Clayton, 646 P.2d 723 (Utah 1982) (). We find no abuse of discretion in the court's allowing the officer to testify as an expert. Officer Olsen had been involved in the drug culture as a user and a seller for four or five years prior to becoming a police officer. He had worked for several years as an investigator and demonstrated to the court his knowledge of the current drug culture before the court qualified him as an expert.
Defendants attack the search warrant on the ground that it was issued in violation of the Aguilar-Spinelli two-pronged standard. See Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). We abandoned the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Butterfield
...Butler, Crockett & Walsh Dev. Corp. v. Pinecrest Pipeline Operating Co., 909 P.2d 225, 233 (Utah 1995)); see also State v. Espinoza, 723 P.2d 420, 421 (Utah 1986). ¶ 23 Butterfield contends that Ms. Shortsleeve did not have the "educational background" to qualify as an expert because she ha......
-
State v. Tuttle
...(2000) ; State v. Raveydts , 691 N.W.2d 290, 293 (S.D. 2004) ; Green v. State , 736 S.W.2d 218, 219 (Tex. App. 1987) ; State v. Espinoza , 723 P.2d 420, 421 (Utah 1986) ; Derr v. Commonwealth , 242 Va. 413, 410 S.E.2d 662, 666 (1991) ; State v. Adkins , 176 W.Va. 613, 346 S.E.2d 762, 773–74......
-
State v. Eldredge
...Utah Rule of Evidence 702, trial courts have discretion in determining the qualifications of expert witnesses. See, e.g. State v. Espinoza, 723 P.2d 420, 421 (Utah 1986); G. Joseph, S. Saltzburgh & The Trial Evidence Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation, Evidence ......
-
State v. Hansen
...Rules of Appellate Procedure, counsel certifies that his arguments to this Court are "warranted by existing law."4 See State v. Espinoza, 723 P.2d 420 (Utah 1986); State v. Anderson, 701 P.2d 1099 (Utah 1985); State v. Bailey, 675 P.2d 1203 (Utah 1984); and State v. Anderton, 668 P.2d 1258 ......
-
Lay & Expert
...did not abuse its discretion in allowing a drug dealer turned paid DEA informant to testify as an expert. See also State v. Espinoza , 723 P.2d 420 (Utah 1986). In a narcotics case, a police officer could properly testify as an expert on drug paraphernalia based upon his experience as a dru......
-
Opinion
...did not abuse its discretion in allowing a drug dealer turned paid DEA informant to testify as an expert. See also State v. Espinoza , 723 P.2d 420 (Utah 1986). In a narcotics case, a police o൶cer could properly testify as an expert on drug paraphernalia based upon his experience as a drug ......
-
Opinion
...did not abuse its discretion in allowing a drug dealer turned paid DEA informant to testify as an expert. See also State v. Espinoza , 723 P.2d 420 (Utah 1986). In a narcotics case, a police o൶cer could properly testify as an expert on drug paraphernalia based upon his experience as a drug ......
-
Opinion
...did not abuse its discretion in allowing a drug dealer turned paid DEA informant to testify as an expert. See also State v. Espinoza , 723 P.2d 420 (Utah 1986). In a narcotics case, a police officer could properly testify as an expert on drug paraphernalia based upon his experience as a dru......