State v. Robert Benedict

• Decision Date: 03 November 1995
• Docket Number: 94 CA 28,95-LW-4755
• Parties: STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERT BENEDICT, Defendant-Appellant CASE
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ROBERT BENEDICT, Defendant-Appellant

No. 94 CA 28.

95-LW-4755 (4th)

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District Washington

November 3, 1995

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT:(fn1) Michael D. Buell, Buell & Sipe Co L.P.A., 322 Third Street, Marietta, Ohio 45750.

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Alison L. Cauthorn, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, 205 Putnam Street, Marietta, Ohio 45750.

DECISION

ABELE P.J.

This is an appeal from a Washington County Common Pleas Court judgment of conviction and sentence. The jury found Robert Benedict, defendant below and appellant herein, guilty of one count of trafficking in marijuana in violation of R.C 2925.03(A)(2).

Appellant assigns the following errors:

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT OVERRULED MR BENEDICT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS."

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"THE JURY'S VERDICT WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT INSTRUCTED THE JURY AS TO THE STATUTORY ELEMENTS OF TRAFFICKING IN MARIJUANA."

FOURTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR:

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IMPOSED A MANDATORY FINE OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS."

On March 4, 1994 at approximately 1:15 am., Ohio State Highway Patrol Trooper Paul Pride stopped a vehicle driving on U.S. Route 50 with only one working headlight. When speaking with the driver through the driver's window, Trooper Pride noticed what he thought was an odor of burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle and noticed a bag of what appeared to be a white powdery substance in the back seat. He also noticed that appellant, one of the two passengers in the vehicle, had a flushed face and glassy eyes.

Trooper Pride instructed the driver of the vehicle to move to the back of Trooper Pride's patrol car. Once they were in the patrol car, Trooper Pride issued the driver a defect notification concerning the headlight, the vehicle's tinted windows, and the vehicle's lack of a front license plate. Next, Trooper Pride asked the driver whether he would consent to a search of the vehicle. The driver gave Trooper Pride written consent to search the vehicle.

Near this point in time, Trooper Jack McCrady arrived on the scene to assist Trooper Pride. Together they removed appellant and the other passenger from the vehicle and searched them for weapons. Appellant and the other passenger stood with Trooper McCrady while Trooper Pride began searching the vehicle.

When searching the vehicle, Trooper Pride discovered that the bag that appeared to contain a white powdery substance actually contained a roll of white gauze. Under the driver's seat of the vehicle, however, Trooper Pride found three plastic bags containing a total of ninety smaller plastic bags of marijuana.

At this point in the search, Trooper Pride and Trooper McCrady handcuffed the driver, appellant, and the other passenger. The driver remained in the rear of Trooper Pride's patrol car. The troopers placed appellant and the other passenger in the rear of Trooper McCrady's patrol car. Trooper Pride then finished searching the vehicle.

At the conclusion of the search, Trooper Pride advised the driver that he was under arrest for possession of marijuana. Trooper Pride then went to Trooper McCrady's patrol car and advised appellant and the other passenger that the driver was under arrest for possession of marijuana and advised them that they would be released. Before removing the handcuffs from appellant and the other passenger, Trooper Pride asked them whether there was anything that they would like to say about the marijuana found in the vehicle. Appellant admitted that he was transporting the marijuana for sale from a friend in Canton, Ohio, to another friend in Athens, Ohio. As a result of appellant's admission, Trooper Pride placed him under arrest, advised him of his Miranda rights, and drove him to the Washington County Sheriff's Department. During the trip to the Sheriff's Department, appellant made additional admissions concerning his transportation of the marijuana intended for sale.

On March 9, 1994, the grand jury indicted appellant for trafficking in drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2). On April 11, 1994, appellant filed a motion to suppress the admissions he made to Trooper Pride. The court heard the motion on April 19, 1994 and April 28, 1994. On May 19, 1994, the court granted appellant's motion with respect to the admissions he made while he was in handcuffs in Trooper McCrady's patrol car prior to the Miranda warnings, but overruled the motion with respect to the admissions he made during the trip to the Sheriff's Department after the Miranda warnings.

On August 11, 1994, the court held a jury trial. The jury found appellant guilty as charged. Immediately after the court discharged the jury, the court held a sentencing hearing. The court refused appellant's request for a pre-sentence investigation. The court also refused appellant's request for a continuance to give him time to prepare a R.C. 2925.03(L) affidavit concerning his inability to pay the mandatory fine. The court sentenced appellant to eighteen months in the Correction Reception Center in Orient, Ohio and fined him the mandatory $2,000 fine.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

I

In his first assignment of error, appellant asserts the trial court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress the admissions he made during the trip to the Sheriff's Department after Trooper Pride advised him of his Miranda rights.(fn2) Appellant argues that Trooper Pride and Trooper McCrady had no probable cause to arrest him without a warrant at the time they handcuffed him and placed him in the rear of Trooper McCrady's patrol car. Appellant further argues that the admissions he made during the trip to the Sheriff's Department were the product of that illegal arrest. Appellant contends that the mere fact that Trooper Pride advised him of his Miranda rights does not "purge the taint of the illegal arrest" that occurred approximately fifteen minutes earlier. Appellant cites Brown v. Illinois (1975), 422 U.S. 590, 598 and Wong Sun v. United States (1963), 371 U.S. 471 in support of his arguments.

Appellee argues that Trooper Pride and Trooper McCrady did not illegally arrest appellant, and thus there was no illegal arrest to "taint" the post-Miranda admissions that appellant made on the trip to the Sheriff's Department. Rather appellee contends that the officer detained appellant pursuant to an investigative detention. See Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1. In support of this argument, appellee cites United States v. Sharpe (1985), 470 U.S. 675 and State v. McFarland (1982), 4 Ohio App.3d 158, 446 N.E.2d 1118. In Sharpe, the court found that a twenty minute detention was not unreasonable when the detention was based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity and the time for the stop was reasonably related to achieve the purpose of the stop. In McFarland, the officer detained the suspect in a police cruiser for ten minutes in order to perform a warrant check.

Appellee maintains that the Miranda warnings that Trooper Pride gave appellant broke any link between appellant's first admission at the scene and his later admissions made during the trip to the Sheriff's Department. In support of this argument, appellee cites Oregon v. Elstad (1985), 470 U.S. 298, for the proposition that even if a defendant's pre-Miranda statements "let the cat out of the bag," the defendant's post-Miranda statements may be admitted into evidence provided the pre-Miranda statements were not coerced.

Initially, we note that in a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court assumes the role of trier of fact and is in the best position to resolve questions of fact and to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. State v. Lewis (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 518, 605 N.E.2d 451; State v. Warren (Aug. 12, 1991), Hocking App. No. 90 CA 7, unreported. Thus, the credibility of witnesses testifying in a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence is a matter for the trial court. A reviewing court should not disturb the trial court's findings on the issue of credibility. State v. Fanning (1982), 1 Ohio St.3d 19, 437 N.E.2d 583; State v. Tutt (Apr. 14, 1986), Warren App. No. CA85-09-056, unreported. Accordingly, in our review we are bound to accept the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by competent, credible evidence.

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as well as Section 14, Article I of the Ohio Constitution prohibit any governmental search or seizure, including a brief investigative stop, unless supported by an objective justification. Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 19; State v. Andrews (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 86, 87, 565 N.E.2d 1271, 1272. In order to justify a brief investigatory stop or detention pursuant to Terry, the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. State v. Williams (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 58, 60, 554 N.E.2d 108, 111. The propriety of an investigative stop by a police officer must be viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Bobo (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 177, 524 N.E. 2d 489, paragraph one of the syllabus. The court must determine what a reasonable police officer would do in a given situation.

In the instant case, we note that appellant does not contest the validity of the initial investigative detention. Appellant contends, however, that the fact he was handcuffed and placed in the police cruiser converted the investigative detention into an arrest. Appellant further contends that Trooper Pride did not possess the requisite...