 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hauschildt v. State8/17/1976
The opinion of the court was delivered by: BRETT, Presiding Judge.
Appellant, Darlene A. Hauschildt, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged in Case No. CRF-75-44 of the District Court, Beckham County, with the offense of Unlawful Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Drug (Amphetamines) With the Intent to Distribute. After a trial by jury she was convicted of the lesser offense of Possession of Amphetamine, a misdemeanor. The jury assessed her punishment at one (1) years' confinement in the County jail. In accordance with the verdict, judgment and sentence was imposed on October 24, 1975, and from that judgment and sentence defendant has perfected this timely appeal.
On July 10, 1975, at approximately 11:00 p.m. the defendant was arrested by the Elk City Police and charged with an unrelated offense. When she was processed at the Police Station, an inventory was made of her personal belongings, including the contents of her purse. The police dispatcher, Sandy Nance, testified at defendant's trial that she routinely examined the personal belongings of those being booked into jail and recorded a written description of each item. In the defendant's purse she discovered three bags of pills, one of those bags had 94 white pills, which later proved to be amphetamines, and one bag had 19 1/2 pink pills which later proved to be Preludin. Defendant was subsequently charged with possession of amphetamines with intent to distribute. After the State rested its case against her, the defendant took the stand to admit her knowing possession of the pills in question, but to deny that she intended to distribute them. Her testimony was that she is a 35-year-old widow, the mother of four children, who works at a truck stop from midnight to 8:00 a.m. She offered the explanation that she had wanted the amphetamines to help her stay awake during her working hours, and that she had purchased 100 pills containing amphetamine from a truck driver for $25.00. She also testified that the same truck driver gave her the pink pills, telling her that they were diet pills.
Defendant's brief on appeal argues five propositions of law in this order:
"1. The verdict of the jury is excessive and appears to have been given under the influence of passion and prejudice.
"2. The stopping and arrest of defendant was without authority of law and evidence incidental thereto should be suppressed.
"3. The court erred in admitting documents and testimony during the trial which showed that the defendant was guilty of other separate offenses not part of the offense charged.
"4. The evidence of the illegal drugs should have been suppressed from the evidence because no proper chain of custody was presented during the trial to reasonably identify the evidence as being the same as that taken from the appellant.
"5. The court erred in instructing the jury to fix punishment absent the request of the defendant."
We consider first defendant's contention that her arrest was unlawful and that, consequently, the evidence seized from her purse at the police station should have been suppressed. It is plain that the search of defendant's purse and the seizure of the quantity of contraband pills during the "booking" process at the police station was permissible if her arrest and detention were lawful. See, United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 771 (1974); United States v. Jeffers, 524 F.2d 253 (7th Cir. 1975). Defendant contends, however, that the seizure must fail because the initial arrest in this case was not valid, but a subterfuge to search. See, Fields v. Sta
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|