Title: State v. Zele

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Zele  (97-239); 168 Vt. 154; 716 A.2d 833

[Filed 10-Jul-1998]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 97-239

State of Vermont                   Supreme Court

                                   On Appeal from
     v.                             District Court of Vermont,
                                   Unit No. 2, Addison Circuit

Robert C. Zele                     February Term, 1998

Matthew I. Katz, J.

       John T. Quinn, Addison County State's Attorney, and Sandra W. Everitt,
  Deputy State's Attorney, Middlebury, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

       Peter F. Langrock of Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, for
  Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       AMESTOY, C.J.    Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of
  marijuana in violation of 18 V.S.A. § 4230(a)(1).  He argues that (1) the
  marijuana evidence was seized pursuant to a flawed warrant and should have
  been suppressed, (2) the State should have been required to elect a single
  cache of marijuana on which to base a conviction, and (3) the court should
  have declared a mistrial because of improper remarks by the prosecuting
  attorney during closing argument.  We affirm.

       In July 1996, two Vermont State Police troopers went to defendant's
  residence in response to a complaint that an assault had occurred.  When
  the troopers arrived, defendant invited them to enter the residence.  While
  questioning defendant, Trooper Matthew Raymond observed a used waterbong
  and noticed defendant move a bedroom door to a position that concealed the
  bong from view.  The trooper also detected the odor of burning marijuana. 
  Subsequently, the trooper received an anonymous tip that defendant and his
  friend dealt drugs from defendant's auto body shop, located in the garage
  beside the residence.  A few days later,

 

  Trooper Raymond applied for, and received, a warrant to search defendant's
  residence and garage for evidence of marijuana use.  In the resulting
  search, police recovered, among other things, two separate quantities, or
  caches, of marijuana.  One cache, weighing approximately 12.5 grams, was
  found in the kitchen area on top of a cupboard.  The second cache, weighing
  approximately one-half gram, was found in the garage adjacent to the
  residence.  The State charged constructive possession, and a jury returned
  a guilty verdict. Defendant appeals.

                                     I.

       Defendant's first claim of error is that the marijuana evidence was
  seized pursuant to a flawed warrant and should have been suppressed.  He
  makes essentially two arguments to support this claim.  First, he contends
  that Trooper Raymond's affidavit sworn in support of the warrant lacked
  sufficient information to support a finding of probable cause.  As part of
  this claim, defendant asserts that the affidavit contained a tip from an
  anonymous source which was not properly verified.  See V.R.Cr.P. 41(c) (to
  rely on information in affidavit obtained from confidential informant,
  there must be a "substantial basis for believing the source of the hearsay
  to be credible and for believing that there is factual basis for the
  information furnished").  In this case, we need not determine whether there
  was sufficient corroborating information with respect to the anonymous
  source because, even without the anonymous tip, the affidavit set forth
  sufficient information to support probable cause.

       Probable cause exists where information set out in an affidavit
  reveals circumstances from which a person of reasonable caution would
  conclude that a crime has been committed and that evidence of the crime
  will be found in the place to be searched.  See State v. Ballou, 148 Vt.
  427, 433-34,