Opinion ID: 1748854
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the lower court err in admitting testimony relating to the.25-caliber automatic pistol found underneath the mattress on appellant's bed and the .32-20 caliber revolver found under Pace's pillow?

Text: The prosecution did not offer in evidence the two (2) pistols found in appellant's motel room, but did introduce testimony describing them and the places where they were found. The appellant objected to the introduction of such testimony and, after a hearing outside the presence of the jury, the lower court admitted same. Appellant argues that such testimony was irrelevant and highly prejudicial as evidence of another and separate crime and constitutes reversible error. The State contends that it is common knowledge persons working in the narcotics traffic usually carry weapons to protect themselves and their business and that such weapons constitute tools of the trade. On that theory, the lower court admitted the testimony. In United States v. Picklesimer, 585 F.2d 1199 (1978) the Third Circuit Court of Appeals stated: In any event, we believe that where a defendant is charged with narcotics conspiracy, evidence that weapons were found in his possession may be relevant and admissible. It often happens that illegal enterprises, such as narcotic conspiracies, are ongoing ventures, requiring the use of guns for protection of the contraband and in such a case, a weapon may be as much a tool of the crime as the van used to transport the narcotics. It lay within the sound discretion of the district judge to admit evidence concerning possession or use of weapons, and, on the facts of this case, there was no abuse of discretion in the admission of such evidence. [585 F.2d at 1204]. and, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated in United States v. Wiener, 534 F.2d 15 (1976): Experience on the trial and appellate benches has taught that substantial dealers in narcotics keep firearms on their premises as tools of the trade almost to the same extent as they keep scales, glassine bags, cutting equipment and other narcotics equipment. We hold that the gun was relevant to the issues upon which Wiener was tried and that the court did not abuse its discretion in holding that its probative weight was not overbalanced by the inflammatory tendency of the gun as evidence. See United States v. Campanile, 516 F.2d 288, 292 (2 Cir.1975); United States v. Fisher, 455 F.2d 1101, 1103-4 (2 Cir.1972); United States v. Ravich, 421 F.2d 1196, 1204-05 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 834 [91 S.Ct. 69, 27 L.Ed.2d 66] (1970); United States v. Pentado, 463 F.2d 355, 360 (5 Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1079 [93 S.Ct. 963, 35 L.Ed.2d 271] (1972) and 410 U.S. 909 [93 S.Ct. 963, 35 L.Ed.2d 271] (1973). [534 F.2d at 18.]. We think the reasons given in the Federal cases, supra, for admitting the guns as evidence are sound and we hold that in the case sub judice the lower court properly permitted their introduction. [1]