State v. Greenwood, O-76-788
| Decision Date | 06 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. O-76-788,O-76-788 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellant, v. Barbara Jean GREENWOOD, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Barbara Jean Greenwood, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was tried for the offense of Possession of Marijuana in a non-jury trial in Case No. CRM-76-164, in the Cleveland County District Court, the Honorable Edward M. McDanel, presiding. At trial, defendant's oral motion to suppress was sustained and a judgment of acquittal was entered. From said judgment of acquittal, the State of Oklahoma has appealed on a reserved question of law.
On the 6th day of February, 1976, Officer John Walsh of the Norman Police Department, made application for a warrant to search Apartment B, 1239 N.E. 12th Norman, Oklahoma, the residence of the defendant. Based upon the application and affidavit, Judge Elvin J. Brown issued said warrant. Pursuant to said warrant, officers of the Norman Police Department searched said residence. During the search, the contraband materials named in the warrant were found and seized; and, as a result, two informations one charging felony possession of heroin, CRF-76-95 and one charging misdemeanor possession of marijuana, CRM-76-164, were filed against the defendant.
On June 16, 1976, defendant's motion to suppress the heroin in the felony case was sustained by Alan J. Couch, Associate District Judge of Cleveland County.
On July 28, 1976, at the non-jury trial on the marijuana charge, defendant orally moved to suppress the marijuana by reason of the fact that the motion to suppress had been sustained in the felony case. CRF-76-95. The State requested that the trial judge consider the validity of the warrant. The trial judge, however, sustained the motion to suppress without considering the validity of the warrant. Following the sustaining of the motion to suppress, the State rested, defendant's demurrer to the evidence was sustained, and judgment of acquittal was entered. This appeal followed.
The Appellant's first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in sustaining the motion to suppress without ruling on the validity of the search warrant. We agree.
The pre-trial ruling on the motion to suppress in the felony case was not binding upon the court in the instant case. Collateral estoppel only applies when there has been a final adjudication of an ultimate issue of fact. See, Wilds v. State, Okl.Cr., 545 P.2d 779 (1976).
It is elementary that a trial court may overrule a motion to suppress and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Doucet
...to abide by a former court decree suppressing evidence because it is not a "final judgment on the merits." E. g., State v. Greenwood, 565 P.2d 701 (Okl.Cr.App.1977); Cook v. State, 35 Md.App. 430, 371 A.2d 433 (1977). If these decisions attempt to follow Ashe v. Swenson, they represent a st......
-
Com. v. Scala
...52 Cal.2d 330, 340, 341 P.2d 1 (1959). McGrath v. Gold, 36 N.Y.2d 406, 412, 369 N.Y.S.2d 62, 330 N.E.2d 35 (1975). State v. Greenwood, 565 P.2d 701, 703 (Okl.Cr.App.1977). See Maldonado, petitioner, 364 Mass. 359, 363, 304 N.E.2d 419 (1973).6 This view has not always been followed. In State......
-
Com. v. Lagana
...in felony indictments; application of principle would nullify statutory rights granted state in prosecuting felonies); State v. Greenwood, 565 P.2d 701 (Okla.Crim.App.1977) (pre-trial suppression ruling may be overruled at trial and therefore is not final and not binding in second trial on ......
-
S.W. v. State
...whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to a court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence. See, e.g., State v. Greenwood, 565 P.2d 701 (Okla.Crim.App.1977); Cook v. State, 35 Md.App. 430, 371 A.2d 433 (1977), aff'd, 281 Md. 665, 381 A.2d 671 (1978), cert. denied 439 U.S. 839,......