Case Title: State v. Gray

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-10-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
STATE of Arkansas v. Mike GRAY

CR 97-460                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered October 30, 1997


1.   Criminal law -- abandonment -- issue turns on facts of case. -- The
     issue of abandonment necessarily turns on the facts in a given
     case.

2.   Appeal & error -- appeal by State -- resolution of factual issue did not
     require interpretation of criminal rules -- not appealable. -- Where the
     trial courtþs decision in this case necessarily turned on
     whether appellee in fact abandoned a bag of marijuana, the
     supreme court concluded that the resolution of the issue did
     not require an interpretation of its criminal rules with
     widespread ramifications; where the trial court acts within
     its discretion after making an evidentiary decision based on
     the facts at hand or even a mixed question of law and fact,
     the supreme court will not accept an appeal by the State under
     Ark. R. App. P.--Crim. 3(c).

3.   Appeal & error -- appeal by State -- resolution of mixed question of law
     and fact not appealable. -- Where the issue of appellee's standing
     to challenge the validity of the search warrant presented a
     mixed question of law and fact, requiring for resolution the
     trial court to determine whether appellee manifested a
     subjective expectation of privacy in another personþs
     residence and whether society was prepared to recognize this
     expectation as reasonable, the supreme court held that it was
     not appealable.

4.   Appeal & error -- appeal by State -- accepted only when holding would
     establish important precedent -- appeal dismissed. -- The supreme court
     only accepts appeals by the State when its holdings would
     establish important precedent; where neither issue presented
     by the State involved the correct and uniform administration
     of justice, the supreme court dismissed the appeal.


     Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; Harold Erwin, Judge;
dismissed.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kelly S. Terry, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellant.
     Castleman Law Firm, by: Bob Castleman, for appellee.

     W.H. "Dub" Arnold, Chief Justice.
     The State brings this interlocutory appeal under Ark. R. App.
P.--Crim. 3(c), asserting the grounds that the trial court (1)
improperly suppressed a one-pound bag of marijuana allegedly
abandoned by appellee Mike Gray; and (2) erroneously concluded that
appellee had standing to challenge the validity of a search warrant
to search another personþs residence.  The Attorney General
maintains, as it is required to do under Rule 3(c), that the
correct and uniform administration of justice requires our review
of the trial courtþs suppression order.  Because we conclude that
neither issue raised by the State involves the correct and uniform
administration of justice, we dismiss the appeal.
     On June 24, 1994, officers with the Third District Judicial
Task Force met with a confidential informant to arrange an
undercover sale of marijuana and crystal methamphetamine to Lavern
Bruton at his residence in Pocahontas, Arkansas.  Later that
evening, the informant went to Brutonþs residence with ten pounds
of marijuana and an eight-ball of crystal methamphetamine that had
been provided to him by the task force.  While the informant was
inside the residence, Bruton telephoned appellee Mike Gray and
instructed him to come to his house.  When appellee arrived in a
silver van, officers who were conducting surveillance observed
Bruton come outside and sell him one pound of marijuana.  After the
sale, appellee drove away from the residence.  Soon thereafter,
officers executed a search warrant of the Bruton residence and
recovered nine pounds of marijuana.  When officers stopped appellee
in his van, they found no controlled substances.  However, while
appellee was stopped, officers found a bag of marijuana in a ditch. 
The mark on the bag matched the markings on the other bags found in
the Bruton residence that the informant had given Bruton.
     Appellee was charged by felony information with possession of
a controlled substance with intent to deliver.  Thereafter, he
filed a pretrial motion to suppress the one-pound bag of marijuana
on the ground that it had been obtained pursuant to an invalid
search warrant of Brutonþs residence.  He further argued that he
was on Brutonþs private property upon Brutonþs invitation when he
was þunlawfully observedþ by the officers.  He further claimed that
the warrant to search Brutonþs residence was invalid because it was
an þanticipatory warrant.þ  The trial court conducted a suppression
hearing at which Bruton testified, confirming that he had indeed
delivered one pound of marijuana to appellee on the night in
question.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
granted appelleeþs motion and suppressed the bag of marijuana found
in the ditch, from which the State now brings this interlocutory
appeal.
     The first issue presented is whether the trial court should
have determined that appellee abandoned the marijuana in question
and thus abandoned his rights under the Fourth Amendment.  Before
addressing the merits of this claim, we must first decide whether
this issue is properly before us under Rule 3(c).  Specifically, we
must decide whether the correct and uniform administration of
justice requires us to review this point.
     In support of its argument, the State refers us to three cases
regarding abandonment of Fourth Amendment rights.  See Edwards v.
State, 300 Ark. 4,