Court Opinion

ID: 9565678
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:25:40.636971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:49.524827
License: Public Domain

GORDON, Justice
(dissenting):
I dissent from the majority opinion. Before this Court disturbs the findings of the trial court on a motion to suppress, the record must reveal clear and manifest error. That predicate has not been laid in the instant case, because the record is devoid of any proof of the circumstances of the seizure of the marijuana from the residence. Although it is clear that Mrs. Love was arrested in the room where the marijuana was found, there is no evidence that the contraband was in an area within her immediate control. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), rehearing denied 396 U.S. 869, 90 S.Ct. 36, 24 L.Ed.2d 124. The majority’s *161reliance on Chimel, supra, is, thus, inappropriate.
I, therefore, agree with the Court of Appeals and conclude that all of the marijuana was inadmissible because of insufficient evidence in the record to merit a reversal of the trial court’s findings.