 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Werner6/5/2003
, 1662, 134 L.Ed.2d 911, 919 (1996).
Consequently, we hold that the trial justice did not err in admitting the evidence seized from Apartments 14A and 14B and the common hallway of the apartment building on Brookside Avenue in West Warwick.
C. Other Issues
We have examined other issues that defendant raised in challenging the search warrant and find them unpersuasive. We conclude that the trial justice did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized in the execution of the search warrant.
D. The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
We agree with defendant and the state that the inevitable discovery doctrine has no application to this case. However, we conclude that this doctrine was not necessary to the determination that the evidence seized from Apartments 14A and 14B was admissible on the grounds stated previously in this opinion.
III. Probable Cause for the Arrest of Defendant Werner
In his brief, defendant argues that he was arrested without probable cause. We have determined earlier in this opinion that the West Warwick police had ample probable cause to believe that a number of crimes had been committed and that Werner probably was the person who had committed these crimes. We believe that the information available to the police before the arrest met all the standards set forth in Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959) and its progeny, as well as our own substantial case law on this subject, including State v. Guzman, 752 A.2d 1 (R.I. 2000); In re Armand, 454 A.2d 1216 (R.I. 1983).
IV. The Admission of Expert Testimony by Gerald Gorman
The defendant argues that Gerald Gorman was improperly allowed to testify as an expert witness that the shotgun displayed in two of the photographs seized from Apartment 14B was the same as the shotgun seized from the drop ceiling of Apartment 14A. Gerald Gorman was a commander of the West Warwick Police Department and was qualified as a firearms expert. The defendant contends that he should not have been permitted to testify on this subject because the state had failed to disclose his anticipated testimony to the defense before calling this witness to testify. The defendant argues that this ruling violates Rule 16 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure. The events leading up to Commander Gorman's testimony were as follows.
Initially, defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude five color photographs that Det. Santos seized from the door of the refrigerator in Apartment 14B during the course of executing a search warrant issued by a justice of the Superior Court. In support of the motion in limine, defendant argued that there was no evidence establishing a connection between the shotgun shown in the picture as held by Werner and the shotgun used to commit the crimes against Stoddard and Burton. Counsel for the state argued that the similarity between the weapon depicted in the photographs and that seized by the West Warwick police was visible and discernible to the members of the jury. The state argued that the jury should be able to use its own judgment in determining whether these weapons were one and the same. In deciding the motion in limine, the trial justice agreed that it was within the jury's province to determine whether the weapon seized and the weapon depicted in the photographs were the same. He therefore denied defendant's motion in limine to exclude the photographs.
Thereafter, during the trial of the case, Det. Santos testified concerning his seizure of the five photographs and further testified that two of the photographs purported to depict a black
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Rhode Island DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|