Opinion ID: 380919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony of Detective Patterson and the Informant Whaley

Text: 18 Detective Anthony Patterson was introduced into the narcotic operations through the informant Whaley. Through this contact he met and dealt with Odell Johnson and Stampede Johnson. Patterson's testimony clearly established that from early April through April 25, 1977, he had direct personal contact with the two appellants. Through them he arranged for and made narcotic purchases, both directly and indirectly. Through one or more of those appellants he negotiated and arranged for a series of transactions. The detective's testimony supported counts 2 through 6 of the indictment and the criminal involvement of the two Johnson brothers. In the course of his testimony Patterson testified that following one heroin purchase, Bolden remarked that they would soon see how good Stampede's dope is. 19 Stampede Johnson's counsel moved for a mistrial based on the detective's testimony recounting several such statements of Bolden and Patterson concerning Stampede dope (Tr. at 308-310) labelling certain statements hearsay and another an inadmissible statement by a person not designated as a co-conspirator. The trial judge agreed that a worrisome situation existed but denied the motion. At a later time Whaley also testified that he was told by Detective Kenneth Johnson, who supervised both Patterson and Smith, to purchase some drugs from Stampede's organization. (Tr. at 617). Counsel again moved for a mistrial, claiming that the informant's testimony was prejudicial hearsay. In denying the motion the court's offer of a curative instruction was refused as inadequate. However, the prosecutor was cautioned. (Tr. at 654). On still other occasions there was reference to the Stampede organization and the organization (Tr. at 685-690). The trial court again denied that appellant's counsel's motion for a mistrial. 20 Defense counsel sought to discredit Whaley in every possible manner. They secured his admissions that he used heroin regularly and committed acts of larceny throughout the investigation. Under cross-examination, Whaley testified that he had been at Saint Elizabeth's Hospital from 1970 to 1974, having been found not guilty by reason of insanity on an automobile theft charge. Appellants' counsel also elicited that Whaley received outpatient medical treatment after 1974 and that he had violated medical orders to abstain from narcotic drugs. However, the court refused to afford counsel an opportunity to explore or examine in any detail on Whaley's confinement, diagnosis or treatment or to introduce his medical records, finding the latter confidential. 21