Weingart v. State
| Decision Date | 19 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--1272A115,1--1272A115 |
| Citation | 301 N.E.2d 222,157 Ind.App. 597 |
| Parties | Barry I. WEINGART, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. . Third District |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Zaban, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Barry I. Weingart was stopped by Officer Norman L. Weber on State Road 56 for not having a taillight on his yellow Volkswagon. When the window on the driver's side of the Volkswagon was rolled down by Weingart, Officer Weber recognized the odor of marijuana and observed a 'roach clamp' hanging on Weingart's shirt. A search of the ash trays disclosed the remains of what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes. Later, Weingart signed a written consent to a search of his automobile. A laboratory test confirmed that seeds found on the floor in Weingart's automobile were marijuana sees and that the cigarette butts did contain marijuana residue.
Weingart was charged by affidavit with possession of a dangerous drug, tried by court and found guilty of the charge. His motion to correct errors and brief raise these issues on appeal:
1. Was the admission into evidence of a statement made by Weingart a violation of his constitutional rights?
2. Was there sufficient evidence to show possession of marijuana?
3. Was the consent to search form signed by Weingart, Exhibit G, valid?
We affirm the judgment of the trial court in our opinion which concludes that the statement complained of by Weingart was brought out on cross-examination of Officer Weber by his own defense counsel and that the evidence does show constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt. The third issue is waived since it is presented for the first time on appeal.
Indiana State Police Officer Norman L. Weber was driving west on Indiana State Road 56 at about 9:00 o'clock P.M. on October 17, 1971. He passed a yellow Volkswagon going east on Indiana State Road 56. Officer Weber turned around and pursued the Volkswagon. He stopped the car because the left taillight was not working. Officer Weber approached the car and asked the driver, Barry I. Weingart, for his driver's license. There were three other people in the car. When Weingart rolled down the window, Officer Weber recognized the odor of burning marijuana. He also saw what he identified as a 'roach clamp' hanging on Weingart's shirt. He explained that a roach clamp is an electrical clamp often used in smoking marijuana cigarettes. Officer Weber asked Weingart to get out of the car and then conducted a search of the front ash trays where he found what appeared to be the remains of marijuana cigarettes. He further conducted a search of the rear seat and found cigarette papers used in rolling cigarettes and additional marijuana cigarette butts in the rear ash tray. Officer Weber placed Weingart and the three passengers under arrest. At the site of the arrest and at the police post, Weingart and the three passengers were discussing the situation among Indiana State Police Officer, George R. Lewallen, testified that he conducted laboratory tests on the evidence seized from the car and found the seeds to be marijuana seeds and the cigarette butts to contain marijuana residue.
themselves and with Officer Weber. They made several statements about the small amount of marijuana they had and about what a roach clamp is used for. After Weingart had been in custody for from one (1) to two (2) hours, Officer Weber asked Weingart to sign a consent to search form. Weingart signed. The next day, the car was searched and marijuana seeds were found.
Weingart was charged by affidavit with possession of a dangerous drug on October 18, 1971. Trial was held before the court on September 11, 1972 and Weingart was found guilty. He was then ordered committed to the Indiana State Farm for a period of one year and fined $50.00 pursuant to I.C.1971, 16--6--8--10; Ind.Stat.Ann. § 35--3338 (Burns 1972 Supp.). All but thirty (30) days of the sentence was suspended. Weingart timely filed his motion to correct errors which was overruled.
The three issues to be discussed in this opinion will be designated in our 'Statement on the Law' as 'Issue One,' 'Issue Two' and 'Issue Three.' These issues are as follows:
Issue One: Were the statements made by Weingart at the scene of the arrest and introduced at trial a violation of Weingart's constitutional rights?
Issue Two: Was there sufficient evidence to prove that Weingart had 'possession' of the marijuana found in his automobile?
Issue Three: Was Exhibit G, the consent to search form signed by Weingart, valid?
STATEMENT ON THE LAW
Issue One:
The statement was brought out at trial on the cross-examination of Officer Weber by Weingart's legal counsel. Weingart's statement to Officer Weber was that he couldn't understand getting 'busted' for such a small amount of marijuana. The cross-examination o State Police Officer Weber by Weingart's legal counsel is as follows:
'
Our Indiana Supreme Court in Brower v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 35, 41, 138 N.E.2d 237, 240 stated:
Weingart's exploratory cross-examination brought forth unwanted responses. He cannot reject that which is unfavorable to his case and accept only that part of the response which is favorable. We find no error.
Issue Two:
The second issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that Weingart had 'possession' of the marijuana found in his car. Looking to the evidence most favorable to the State, it shows:
(a) Weingart was the owner and driver of the car in which the marijuana cigarette butts were found.
(b) Weingart admitted to Officer Weber that he was surprised that he would be 'busted' for possessing such a small amount of marijuana.
(c) Cigarette butts containing marijuana were found in the front ash tray between Weingart and the other occupant of his automobile.
(d) A roach clip was hanging from Weingart's shirt.
From this evidence, the trial court could have inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that Weingart had constructive possession of the marijuana. In Thomas v. State (1973), Ind., 291 N.E.2d 557, 559,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Board of Com'rs of Howard County v. Kokomo City Plan Commission
...Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 217 (specificity as to constitutional grounds); State v. Hladik, (1973) Ind.App., 302 N.E.2d 544; Weingart v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 301 N.E.2d 222; Daben Realty Co. v. Stewart, (1972) Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 809; Matthew v. State, (1972) Ind.App., 289 N.E.2d 336; Ostric ......
-
Cooper v. State
... ... 2 is hereby granted and the Court will reconsider the admissibility of State's Exhibit No. 2 in light of the testimony given before this court on this date ... 3 Thomas v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 1, 5, 291 N.E.2d 557, 559; Weingart v. State (1973), Ind.App., 301 N.E.2d 222, 225; Corrao v. State, supra, 154 Ind.App. at 533, 290 N.E.2d at 487--488 ... 4 Q. The heroin, that you were speaking of, what was the weight that you were speaking of? ... A. We don't make a determination of the weight of the residue ... Q. Was ... ...
-
Bennett v. State
...recent case law: Spivey v. State (1971), Ind., 274 N.E.2d 227; Matthew v. State (1972), Ind.Ct.App., 289 N.E.2d 336; Weingart v. State (1973), Ind.Ct.App., 301 N.E.2d 222; State v. Hladik (1973), Ind.Ct.App., 302 N.E.2d 544; Daben Realty Co., Inc. v. Stewart (1972), Ind.Ct.App., 290 N.E.2d ......
-
Ingmire v. Butts
...N.E.2d 827; Spivey v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 257, 274 N.E.2d 227; Matthew v. State (1972), Ind.App., 289 N.E.2d 336; Weingart v. State (1973), Ind.App., 301 N.E.2d 222; State v. Hladik (1973), Ind.App., 302 N.E.2d 544; Daben Realty Co., Inc. v. Stewart (1972), Ind.App., 290 N.E.2d 809; Ind.......