Title: State v. Kelly

State: arizona

Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court

Document:

99 Ariz. 136 (1965) 407 P.2d 95 The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Wiley Edward KELLY, Appellant. No. 1442. Supreme Court of Arizona. En Banc. November 3, 1965. *138 Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Robert W. Pickrell, former Atty. Gen., Stirley Newell, former Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee, Allen L. Feinstein, Phoenix, of counsel. Joe R. Glenn, Mesa, for appellant. McFARLAND, Justice. This is an appeal from a judgment and conviction for the crime of the illegal possession of narcotics, in violation of A.R.S. § 36-1002, as amended in 1961. Appellant, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was tried before a jury, adjudged guilty and received a sentence of not less than six nor more than eight years in the Arizona state prison. From this conviction and sentence defendant appeals. The facts of the case are as follows: On July 26, 1963, at approximately 9:30 p.m., three Phoenix city detectives, accompanied by three narcotics agents from the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, searched the premises at 3439 East Sheridan in Phoenix. The search was made under authority of a search warrant, issued earlier that day by Justice of the Peace Ida Ann Westfall, which authorized a search of the premises in question and a certain Fiat automobile located on those premises. Upon arriving at the East Sheridan address, the officers were admitted to the premises by the 16-year-old brother of defendant, and proceeded to conduct a search of the home. Defendant and one Marlene Walsh remained in the home while the search was being conducted. During the course of the search a satchel, containing vials of drugs and various narcotics, was discovered behind a washing machine in a storage room at the rear of the house. Defendant and Marlene Walsh were tried in October 1963, during which a mistrial was granted because of certain prejudicial statements made before the jury by the deputy county attorney. Defendant and Mrs. Walsh were later tried in November 1963. A pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search was denied. The satchel and its contents were admitted into evidence over the objections of defendants. Defendant was found guilty while the jury became deadlocked regarding the charges against Mrs. Walsh. Defendant asserts that it was error for the lower court to deny the motion to suppress admission of the narcotics that were found during the course of the search of the East Sheridan residence, and in admitting the same over his objection. Defendant in this contention stated that the affidavit "supporting the search warrant was insufficient and invalid, because it *139 lacked the following allegations necessary for a nighttime search: The answer to defendant's assignments of error requires an examination of what constitutes probable cause for issuing a search warrant. Our statutes set forth the conditions under which a search warrant may be issued, as follows: It will be noted that it is the duty of the court to examine complainant under oath; also that his testimony must be supported by affidavit "naming or describing the person, and particularly describing the property and place to be searched." The reason for requiring the examination of the magistrate is that the magistrate makes the determination of probable cause rather than the officer or officers applying for the search warrant. Aguilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723. When a question is raised in regard to a search warrant the court must determine whether the procedure has been substantially followed, and whether the court issuing the warrant had sufficient grounds upon which to base its decision. The courts have held that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of a search warrant. State v. Sheffield, 97 Ariz. 61, 396 P.2d 828; Booze v. State, 390 P.2d 261 (Okl.); People v. Lombardi, 18 A.D.2d 177, 239 N.Y.S.2d 161; Addison v. United States, 5 Cir., 317 F.2d 808; Wilson v. United States, 10 Cir., 218 F.2d 754; United States v. Thomas, D.C., 216 F. Supp. 942; Commonwealth v. Fancy, 207 N.E.2d 276 (Mass.); Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338, 60 S. Ct. 266, 84 L. Ed. 307. In the instant case defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained by the search warrant. The testimony elicited during this pre-trial hearing is not before this court. In State v. Sheffield, supra, on a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the search where the transcript of the hearing was not before the court, we held: We must presume in the instant case that the court, in passing upon the motion to suppress the evidence, went into the matter carefully, and found that there was sufficient grounds for the issuing of the warrant by the magistrate. *141 In the case of United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S. Ct. 741, 13 L. Ed. 2d 684, the United States Supreme Court said: Having found these procedures were followed in the instant case, the actions of the officers should be sustained. The contention that the affidavit is insufficient in regard to the date the information was received from the informant, and in regard to the date the informer obtained his information, is not well founded. The affidavit is positive and definite in that it states the informant had "recently" seen defendant in possession of narcotics at both the East Sheridan address and in the Fiat automobile. Any more definite time might reveal the identity of the informant. In the case of Waggener v. McCanless, 183 Tenn. 258, 191 S.W.2d 551, 162 A.L.R. 1402, where it was the contention of defendant that the word "recently" was not sufficiently definite as to time, the court stated: Other courts have held the word "recently" is sufficiently definite as to the time the informant received his information. Ellison v. State, 186 Tenn. 581, 212 S.W.2d 387; Douglas v. State, 144 Tex.Cr.R. 29, 161 S.W.2d 92; Bickerstaff v. State, 139 Tex. Cr.R. 69, 139 S.W.2d 110; Hartless v. State, 121 Tex.Cr.R. 181, 50 S.W.2d 1097. In regard to the contention set forth under "C," as to the date or time the informer received his information, it is answered by the same principles of law applicable *142 to "B." Certainly if the informant "recently" received or observed the facts sworn to by the affiant, then the requirement that the affiant state the date as to when he received his information is also met. We conclude, therefore, from the record before us that the evidence before the trial court at the time it denied the motion to suppress the evidence was sufficient to justify its finding that the search warrant was valid that the magistrate had examined the applicant, and had before her sufficient evidence to justify its issuance. We hold the court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence. Defendant contends the state should have been ordered to reveal the identity of the informant. During the course of the trial, defense counsel stated: Defendant contends that the failure of the state to furnish the defendant with the name of the informant deprived the defendant of his only defense viz., that this informer, or some one this informer knew, had planted the narcotics in defendant's home. Therefore, defendant claims that there was prejudicial error committed when the trial court denied the defendant's motion to have the identity of the informer revealed. The appellee claims that the facts of this case are such as not to necessitate an exception to the "informer's privilege." The leading case in this area of the "informer's privilege" is Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S. Ct. 623, 1 L. Ed. 2d 639, wherein the failure of the government to disclose the identity of its undercover employee was held to be prejudicial as to defendant's case, as the undercover informant was the sole participant, along with the accused, in the crime charged. The United States Supreme Court held that the identity of the informant should have been revealed as he was "the only witness in a position to amplify or contradict the testimony of government witnesses." 353 U.S. at 64, 77 S. Ct. at 630. In discussing the "informer's privilege," in Roviaro, supra, the court stated: In order to determine if fairness to defendant dictates the disclosure of the informant's identity, one must ask: what purpose would be served by the disclosure? Kelly at first denied any knowledge of the satchel and then later he said that it had been left by a friend from California whose name he could not remember. According to testimony of Officer Gardiner regarding Kelly's statements: Defendant did not take the stand, and did not present any evidence to the effect that he did not know the narcotics found were there. Therefore, his contention that he was deprived of a defense was not well founded. Kelly was charged solely with illegal possession of narcotics. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that Kelly knew of the presence of the drugs in the residence. Kelly showed the investigating officer where his "fixing" kit was located. Officer Gardiner testified: The facts of this case do not show that defendant was prejudiced by the refusal of the state to reveal the identity of its informer especially in light of the crime charged viz., illegal possession of narcotics. No purpose could have been served by revealing the informer's identity, and therefore, an exception to the "informer's privilege" was properly refused. Judgment affirmed. LOCKWOOD, C.J., STRUCKMEYER, V.C.J., and UDALL and BERNSTEIN, JJ., concurring.