Case Title: State v. Chaffin

Citation: 324 So. 2d 369

Docket Number: 

State: louisiana

Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-12-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
324 So. 2d 369 (1975) STATE of Louisiana v. Billy CHAFFIN. No. 56627. Supreme Court of Louisiana. December 8, 1975. Rehearing Denied January 16, 1976. *370 John Saunders, Mamou, for defendant-appellant. William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alfred R. Ryder, Dist. Atty., Errol D. Deshotels, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee. DIXON, Justice. The defendant, Billy Chaffin, was charged by bill of information with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of R.S. 40:966A. He was convicted in a jury trial on March 26, 1975 and subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years and a day. On appeal he relies on five assignments of error. The defendant filed a pre-trial motion to suppress certain evidence seized from his residence and vehicle pursuant to a search warrant. To the trial judge's denial of the motion to suppress the evidence, defendant assigns these errors. The attack on the search warrant is three-pronged, defendant contending (1) it does not contain probable cause for its issuance because it contains nothing about the reliability of Larry Duplechan; (2) it does not contain probable cause for its issuance because it is based on stale information; (3) the warrant did not properly describe the place to be searched. *371 Article 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure states: It is well settled that the affidavit must recite facts establishing to the satisfaction of the judge, not the affiant, that probable cause exists for the issuance of the search warrant. State v. Flood, 301 So. 2d 637 (La.1974); State v. Paciera, 290 So. 2d 681 (La.1974). The factual information which is the foundation for the determination of probable cause must be contained in the affidavit. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1964). Mere suspicion or belief is not sufficient to establish probable cause. State v. Wells, 253 La. 925, 221 So. 2d 50 (1969). With these principles in mind, the recitals of the affidavit which served as the basis of the application for the search warrant and its subsequent issuance must be examined. The affidavit in its entirety states: The first argument that the affidavit fails to state sufficient facts to satisfy the probable cause requirement because nothing is said about Duplechan's reliability is without merit. The affidavit states that the affiant herself, after asking Duplechan to see if Chaffin could obtain a bag of marijuana for her, witnessed Chaffin drive up beside Duplechan's car, Duplechan get out of his car and get into Chaffin's, and shortly thereafter return to his car. Ten minutes later, at the affiant's trailer, Duplechan turned over a bag of marijuana to her. Duplechan's reliability is not necessary to establish probable cause since he was acting in response to affiant's request to obtain marijuana from Chaffin. What the affiant saw, while perhaps short of establishing guilt beyond a doubt, was consistent with guilt and established probable cause. State v. Paciera, supra; State v. Hightower, 272 So. 2d 363 (La.1973). Defendant also contends that there was no probable cause for issuance, because the information was "stale," in that the warrant issued fifty days after the alleged July 6, 1974 transaction. We cannot agree. The remoteness of the facts used to justify the issuance of a search warrant must be considered in light of the facts and circumstances of each case. State v. Flood, supra. In Flood, we upheld a warrant issued eighty-three days after the alleged crime. Here, surveillance of Chaffin's residence for drug-related activity continued after the July 6, 1974 incident. (Evidence of surveillance, submitted with and made a part of the affidavit, indicated that the investigation of drug-related activity around the Chaffin residence continued at least until August 11, 1974). Moreover, the investigation of Chaffin was just part of a continuing parish-wide effort, culminating in the August 26, 1974 raids, aimed at reducing the illicit drug traffic in Allen Parish. Affidavits must be tested and interpreted by magistrates and courts in a commonsense and realistic manner. United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1965), cited with approval in United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 91 S. Ct. 2075, 29 L. Ed. 2d 723 (1971). In the instant case, considering all of the facts before the judge, the information was sufficiently recent so as to justify a finding of probable cause at the time the warrant issued. State v. Humble, 309 So. 2d 138 (La.1975). Finally, defendant alleges that the warrant did not properly describe the place to be searched. The warrant describes Chaffin's residence as "located on Fourth Street in Kinder, Allen Parish, La., being the second house on the East side South of the intersection with Third Ave. with a chain link fence around the house." In fact, Chaffin's house was the fifth house on the East side South of that particular intersection. Defendant alleges that this flaw is fatal to the warrant. We disagree. The officers knew which house was in fact Chaffin's residence, since it had been under their surveillance for months prior to the raid. The right house was in fact searched. Moreover, no contraband was found in the house. All of the marijuana introduced into evidence at the trial was found in defendant's car, which was correctly described by make, model, color and license number. See U.S. v. Melancon, 462 F.2d 82 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. den., 409 U.S. 1038, 93 S. Ct. 516, 34 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1972); State v. Lampkin, 253 La. 337, 218 So. 2d 289 (1969). Assignments of Errors Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are without merit. These assignments relate to alleged reversible errors occurring during the district attorney's closing argument to the jury. At one point in his closing argument the district attorney stated: Defendant did not ask for a mistrial, but simply requested a full instruction on the law. There is no allegation that the judge did not instruct the jury properly and completely on the law as it relates to possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute. Therefore, there is no merit to defendant's contention that the prosecutor's remarks were so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error. State v. Elam, 312 So. 2d 318 (La.1975). Finally, defendant objected to the prosecutor's remark: Defendant contends that the district attorney was going beyond the record, arguing a position that is contested by most medical authorities. Defendant contends that the argument appeals to emotion and substantially prejudiced him and therefore constitutes reversible error. Without expressing any opinion as to the medical aspects of the issue, we cannot agree with defendant that he was so prejudiced by this remark that his conviction must be reversed for that reason. In State v. Dennis, 250 La. 125, 139, 194 So. 2d 720, 725 (1967), we held: No motion for a mistrial was made, nor was there any objection to the judge's instructions. Thus, we can only conclude that the error, if any, was not of sufficient magnitude to warrant a reversal. State v. Coates, 273 So. 2d 282 (La.1973). Assignments of Errors Nos. 4 and 5 are without merit. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.