State v. Segovia, No. 10266

CourtIdaho Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcFADDEN; McQUADE and SPEAR, JJ., and SCOGGIN and DUNLAP
Citation468 P.2d 660,93 Idaho 594
Docket NumberNo. 10266
Decision Date01 May 1970
PartiesSTATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Chick SEGOVIA, also known as Florentino Segovia, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 660

468 P.2d 660
93 Idaho 594
STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Chick SEGOVIA, also known as Florentino Segovia, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10266.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
May 1, 1970.

[93 Idaho 595]

Page 661

Henry F. Reed, deceased, and Derr, Derr & Walter, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

Robert M. Robson, Atty. Gen., and Richard Greener, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

McFADDEN, Chief Justice.

Chick Segovia, also known as Florentino Segovia, the appellant was charged with the felony of illegal possession of a narcotic drug (marijuana). He stood trial before a jury, was found guilty and was sentenced to the state penitentiary for a term of five years. He appealed from this judgment of conviction.

On December 29, 1967, an informer, who had worked in narcotics cases with the Boise City Police Department on past occasions, advised officer John Cobley that he could purchase marijuana from Chick Segovia. The informer and officer Cobley drove to the vicinity of Segovia's home, but were unable to locate it. The next evening, the informer brought two marijuana cigarettes to officer Cobley's home and told Cobley that he had purchased them from Segovia that same day. Cobley and the informer agreed that the informer would arrange for the purchase of a one-pound coffee can of marijuana from Segovia on the following evening, which purchase was to be executed under the surveillance of officer Cobley on December 31, 1967.

The officer, who then had Segovia's address, with another policeman set up a surveillance of the appellant's home at about 6 o'clock p. m. that evening. They soon observed the appellant emerge from the rear of his garage, which was attached to his home, with two large brown paper bags and walk toward a large metal trash can located in the back yard. Segovia deposited one of the sacks in the trash can and then walked back to the corner of the garage with the other one and stood there for a few minutes.

While Segovia was standing near the garage, the informer drove up, stopped his car and walked over to him. They were joined by two other people who emerged from the garage, but who soon left in an automobile. The officers, not knowing whether the informer had left with the others, followed the automobile, stopped the car, and found the informer was not in it. The officers then returned to the defendant's house, but the informer's car was gone by this time. The officers then went to Cobley's home where the informer was waiting with a container of a quantity of marijuana. This was not, however, introduced into evidence against the defendant at trial.

The informer advised the officers he had purchased the marijuana from Segovia. The officers radioed for other officers to assist them and then returned to appellant's home to arrest him. Several officers came to their assistance and were [93 Idaho 596]

Page 662

spread out around the house when Sergeant Palmer, with officer Cobley of the Boise police, went to the door and was met by Mrs. Segovia. Segovia was right behind her, and Palmer arrested him for possession of a narcotic, marijuana.

The officers then searched the house, the garage, the trash can in the back yard, and the lot surrounding the house without having first obtained a search warrant. During their search the officers discovered: (1) a small quantity of marijuana in a vase on top of a china closet in the living room; (2) a small plastic bag containing a small quantity of marijuana in a record player which was in the kitchendining area of the home; (3) a pipe containing a small quantity of marijuana which was found in the bedroom; (4) a one-pound coffee can full of marijuana which was found in a bush in the back yard about three feet from a trash can; (5) approximately fifty 'roaches' (cigarettes) found in paper sacks in the garage and in the trash can.

The state offered into evidence Exhibit 2 consisting of those items designated above as (1) and (2); Exhibit 3, the one-pound coffee can containing marijuana, item (4) supra; Exhibit 4, the pipe, item (3) supra. Item (5) supra, was not offered into evidence. Appellant objected to the admission into evidence of Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4 on the grounds, first, that the exhibits do not contain any usable amount of any product that could be classified as a narcotic and, second, that the analysis of the exhibits did not show a narcotic was present. These objections were overruled by the court and the exhibits were admitted into evidence. Appellant objected to the admission into evidence of Exhibit 3 (the one-pound coffee can containing marijuana) on the ground that there was nothing in the testimony indicating that the exhibit was in his possession.

Concerning Exhibit 3, the officers testified that this can of marijuana was found under a bush about three feet from the trash can and that the appellant had earlier been observed walking along a path to the trash can. The officers testified that there was a fresh cover of snow on the ground at the time the officers observed appellant walk to the trash can, that they found foot prints within three feet of the bush and that there were no other footprints within fifteen feet of the bush in either direction. They also testified that there was very little snow on the paper sack containing the marijuana.

In appellant's initial brief there are numerous errors assigned. Subsequent to filing of this brief, appellant's initial counsel passed away, and other counsel were retained for him. Additional briefs were submitted to the court by both counsel.

In appellant's second brief he discusses the issues he claims are before this court for consideration. It is asserted that there is an issue as to whether there was probable cause to arrest appellant without a warrant for his arrest. He contends that all testimony of officer Cobley pertaining to conversation he had with the informant was hearsay and that appellant's motion to strike this testimony should have been granted. The record discloses, however, that there was no objection interposed to any testimony of officer Cobley concerning conversations he had with the informer. The first objection to Cobley's testimony came when he was describing when and where the search was being conducted, at a time after appellant had been arrested. Cobley was testifying as to the incident of finding the can of marijuana near the trash can. Appellant then objected to

'any further questions along this line. This was an illegal arrest and made without...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • State v. Murphy, No. 10827
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 18, 1972
    ...cannot grant relief on the basis of an erroneous trial court ruling where such was not assigned as error on appeal. State v. Segovia, 93 Idaho 594, 468 P.2d 660 2 I.C. § 19-2117: 'Testimony of accomplice-Corroboration.-A conviction can not be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he......
  • State v. Southwick, No. 40855.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • December 3, 2014
    ...State v. Slawson, 124 Idaho 753, 757, 864 P.2d 199, 203 (Ct.App.1993). Possession may be either actual or constructive. State v. Segovia, 93 Idaho 594, 598, 468 P.2d 660, 664 (1970) ; State v. Garza, 112 Idaho 778, 784, 735 P.2d 1089, 1095 (Ct.App.1987). In order to prove constructive posse......
  • State v. Southwick, 40855.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • December 3, 2014
    ...State v. Slawson, 124 Idaho 753, 757, 864 P.2d 199, 203 (Ct.App.1993). Possession may be either actual or constructive. State v. Segovia, 93 Idaho 594, 598, 468 P.2d 660, 664 (1970) ; State v. Garza, 112 Idaho 778, 784, 735 P.2d 1089, 1095 (Ct.App.1987). In order to prove constructive posse......
  • State v. Randles, Nos. 18193
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1990
    ...by evidence that the defendants had knowledge of the drugs, and had control over the premises on which they were found. State v. Segovia, 93 Idaho 594, 468 P.2d 660 (1970); White v. United States, 315 F.2d 113 (9th Cir.1963); United States v. Warren, 594 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir.1979). Constructi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • State v. Murphy, No. 10827
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 18, 1972
    ...cannot grant relief on the basis of an erroneous trial court ruling where such was not assigned as error on appeal. State v. Segovia, 93 Idaho 594, 468 P.2d 660 2 I.C. § 19-2117: 'Testimony of accomplice-Corroboration.-A conviction can not be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he......
  • State v. Southwick, No. 40855.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • December 3, 2014
    ...State v. Slawson, 124 Idaho 753, 757, 864 P.2d 199, 203 (Ct.App.1993). Possession may be either actual or constructive. State v. Segovia, 93 Idaho 594, 598, 468 P.2d 660, 664 (1970) ; State v. Garza, 112 Idaho 778, 784, 735 P.2d 1089, 1095 (Ct.App.1987). In order to prove constructive posse......
  • State v. Southwick, 40855.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • December 3, 2014
    ...State v. Slawson, 124 Idaho 753, 757, 864 P.2d 199, 203 (Ct.App.1993). Possession may be either actual or constructive. State v. Segovia, 93 Idaho 594, 598, 468 P.2d 660, 664 (1970) ; State v. Garza, 112 Idaho 778, 784, 735 P.2d 1089, 1095 (Ct.App.1987). In order to prove constructive posse......
  • State v. Randles, Nos. 18193
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 16, 1990
    ...by evidence that the defendants had knowledge of the drugs, and had control over the premises on which they were found. State v. Segovia, 93 Idaho 594, 468 P.2d 660 (1970); White v. United States, 315 F.2d 113 (9th Cir.1963); United States v. Warren, 594 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir.1979). Constructi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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