State v. Partin

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Citation567 P.2d 1136,88 Wn.2d 899
Docket NumberNo. 44576,44576
PartiesThe STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Arthur L. PARTIN, Appellant.
Decision Date18 August 1977

Hawman & Barrett, James E. Barrett, Walla Walla, for appellant.

Arthur R. Eggers, Pros. Atty., Walla Walla County, Walla Walla, for respondent.

STAFFORD, Associate Justice.

A jury found Arthur Partin guilty of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana. He appealed to the Court of Appeals which in turn certified the matter to this court. We affirm the trial court.

On January 3, 1975, Arthur Partin, vice president of the Chosen Wheels Motorcycle Club, was arrested as he approached a house at 221 East Oak Street in Walla Walla. The residence was used as a clubhouse by the members of the Chosen Wheels and was being purchased by Chris King, president of the club. At the time of the arrest, police were searching the house under authority of a search warrant issued that day by the Walla Walla District Justice Court. During a 2-hour search, officers seized marijuana and marijuana seeds, scales, guns, two motorcycles, a blue jean jacket and a black leather jacket, a photograph of Partin, correspondence addressed to Partin and to King, and an unemployment application and unemployment warrants in Partin's name.

Trial was commenced April 28, 1975 at which time items found in the house, including marijuana, were introduced in evidence. Defendant Partin did not take the stand, and the defense rested on April 29 at 3:15 p.m., whereupon the State released all of its witnesses. At 9 p.m. that night Partin first informed his attorney that he wanted to take the stand in his own defense. His lawyer warned him that his past record of drug-related felony convictions might damage his case if he testified, but he persisted in his demand. Consequently, on the morning of April 30 defense counsel moved to reopen the case for defendant's testimony.

Defendant Partin's own explanation of his desire to testify reveals that he did not intend to touch upon matters relevant to the criminal charge. Rather, he sought to lessen the impact of any unfavorable inference that might have been drawn by his membership in the Chosen Wheels Motorcycle Club. The trial judge denied the motion and the case went to the jury.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of possession of a controlled substance. Thereafter, his motions for new trial and for arrest of judgment were denied. This appeal followed.

First, defendant Partin argues that the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to reopen the case to permit him to take the stand. We do not agree. We have held repeatedly that it is entirely within the discretion of the trial court to grant or refuse a motion to reopen a case for the purpose of permitting further testimony. We will not reverse the trial court except for abuse of discretion. State v. Harmon, 21 Wash.2d 581, 592, 152 P.2d 314 (1944). State v. Pilegge, 61 Wash. 264, 112 P. 263 (1910) is directly in point. In Pilegge defense counsel advised his client against taking the stand and rested. The prosecuting attorney released his witnesses and the case was recessed until the next morning. The trial judge denied a defense motion to reopen the case the following day and we held there had been no abuse of discretion. Pilegge is controlling here.

Further, defendant has cited no authority to support his contention that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to reopen the case. Assignments of error that are not supported by authority ordinarily will not be considered on appeal. State v. Young, 87 Wash.2d 129, 132, 550 P.2d 1 (1976); Wyatt v. University of Washington, 84 Wash.2d 1, 6, 523 P.2d 910 (1974).

Next, defendant contends that the search warrant was insufficient. The application for the search warrant was made by Detective Gene Floyd, both by written affidavit and by an oral statement under oath which was tape-recorded by the judge. The written affidavit reads as follows:

Based upon information received 1-3-75 from a reliable informant affiant has reasonable cause to believe that controlled substances are in the possession of Arthur Partin and other members of the Chosen Wheels Motorcycle Club located at 221 E. Oak St. and other vehicles located at that residence.

Other probable cause information in support of this request for a search warrant in addition to this affidavit will be sworn and testified to orally before the magistrate of Walla Walla County this date by affiant.

The portion of the tape recorded statement relevant to our inquiry states:

Your Honor, based upon information I received on this date, 1-3-75, from a reliable informant, I have reason to believe that marijuana is being kept in the residence of 221 East Oak Street. This is the home of Arthur Partin, also the gathering place for members of the Chosen Wheels Motorcycle Club.

(Judge Martin) All right. Establish the reliability of your informant, first of all, please.

Your Honor, this informant has given information in the past that resulted in at least two arrests and convictions concerning prior drug activity in the Walla Walla area. This informant saw the marijuana at this residence.

(Judge Martin) Are you satisfied as to his reliability?

Yes, I am.

The basic test for the probable cause necessary for a magistrate to issue a search warrant based on information obtained from an informant was established in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964). First, the application must set forth the underlying circumstances necessary to enable the magistrate independently to judge the validity of the informant's conclusion that the drugs were where he claimed they were. Second, the affiant must give the underlying circumstances by which he concluded the informant was credible or his information reliable. State v. Walcott, 72 Wash.2d 959, 963, 435 P.2d 994 (1967).

In the instant case the Aguilar test has been met by the affidavit and the tape recorded statement. They establish the reliability of the informant and the fact that he saw marijuana at the residence. Partin argues, however, that the warrant was not sufficient in the absence of an actual date on which the alleged illegal activity was observed. His assertion is based upon State v. Spencer, 9 Wash.App. 95, 510 P.2d 833 (1973) and Rosencranz v. United States, 356 F.2d 310 (1st Cir. 1966).

The above-cited cases are distinguishable. We agree the underlying facts alleged must be current, not remote in time, and sufficient to justify a magistrate's conclusion that the property sought is probably on the person or premises to be searched at the time he issues the warrant. State v. Spencer, supra, 9 Wash.App. at 97, 510 P.2d 833. However, Spencer was concerned with an affidavit executed on March 9 which relied upon sales of a controlled substance allegedly made the previous December 3 and January 7. Remoteness in the Spencer time frame is quite different from the current nature of the information found in the instant case. In Rosencranz v. United States, supra, neither a date of observation of the alleged criminal activity nor a date as to when the affiant received the information was given. There was nothing in the affidavit which referred to "time" except the use of the present tense. Thus, the court correctly observed in a narrow holding:

We conclude that a combination of undated, conclusory information from an anonymous source and an undated general allegation of personal observation by the affiant, with no other reasonably specific clues to the time of their happening, is inadequate.

Rosencranz v. United States, supra at 318.

Affidavits for search warrants must be tested in a common sense manner rather than hypertechnically as long as the basic Aguilar requirements are met. Doubts should be resolved in favor of the warrant. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); State v. Walcott, supra, 72 Wash.2d at 962, 435 P.2d 994. With this in mind we observe that although the detective in this case did not provide the magistrate with a specific date on which the informant saw the marijuana at the Oak Street residence, he stated that he had received the information that day (the day the warrant was issued) and based thereon, he had reason to believe marijuana was being kept at the house at that time. Thus, the magistrate had a reference point by which to determine the current status of the information.

The written affidavit and oral tape recording of Detective Floyd, when read in a common sense manner, reflect current information and meet the test established in State v. Clay, 7 Wash.App. 631, 637, 501 P.2d 603, 607 (1972): "The support for issuance of a search warrant is sufficient if, on reading the affidavits, an ordinary person would understand that a violation existed and was continuing at the time of the application."

We hold that the warrant and the information on which it was based were sufficient.

Finally, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence to sustain a charge of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana. His position is not well taken. While there is no evidence of actual possession, i.e., drugs in his personal possession, there was substantial evidence from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that such drugs were in defendant's "dominion and control," i.e., in his constructive possession as required by State v. Callahan, 77 Wash.2d 27, 29, 459 P.2d 400 (1969).

In...

To continue reading

Request your trial
538 cases
  • State v. Hankins
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • January 8, 2008
    ...... State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can. be drawn therefrom. Salinas , 119 Wn.2d at 201. We. draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of. the State and interpret them most strongly against the. defendant. State v. Partin , 88 Wn.2d 899, 906-07,. 567 P.2d 1136 (1977). . . Here,. the jury heard testimony that, on January 25, 2005, officers. found two glass jars, one of which was in the freezer,. containing already-manufactured methamphetamine mixed with. acetone ......
  • State v. Carlson, No. 30419-8-II (WA 5/10/2006)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • May 10, 2006
    ...from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the State and interpreted most strongly against the defendant. State v. Partin, 88 Wn.2d 899, 906-07, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977). A claim of insufficiency admits the truth of the State's evidence and all inferences that reasonably can be drawn from it. ......
  • State v. Jimenez–Macias
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • October 16, 2012
    ...apartment J4 using a key. These facts tended to demonstrate his dominion and control over the apartment. See State v. Partin, 88 Wash.2d 899, 906, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977), overruled on other grounds by Lyons, 174 Wash.2d 354, 275 P.3d 314. ¶ 48 Furthermore, the jury could reasonably infer his ......
  • State v. Jackson, 72799-6.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • September 11, 2003
    ...... Id. The affidavit is evaluated in a common sense manner, rather than hypertechnically, and any doubts are resolved in favor of the warrant. Id.; State v. Helmka, 86 Wash.2d 91, 93, 542 P.2d 115 (1975) ; State v. Partin, 88 Wash.2d 899, 904, 567 P.2d 1136 (1977) . .         The affidavit in support of issuance of the initial warrant for the GPS devices included the following: Bloodstains were found on Valiree's pillow and sheet. More than one red pubic hair was found in her sheets, and both she and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Survey of Washington Search and Seizure Law: 1998 Update
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 22-01, September 1998
    • Invalid date
    ...867 P.2d 593, 604 (1994); State v. Kalakosky, 121 Wash. 2d 525, 531, 852 P.2d 1064, 1067 (1993); State v. Partin, 88 Wash. 2d 899, 904, 567 P.2d 1136, 1139 (1977); State v. Olson, 73 Wash. App. 348, 354, 869 P.2d 110, 113-14 (1994); State v. Kennedy, 72 Wash. App. at 248, 864 P.2d at 412; S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT