 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lancaster v. State3/28/2002
knife, did not matter. This information did not have a tendency to prove or disprove any element of a charged crime or a defense. The questions should not have been asked, and, had there been an objection, such should have been sustained.
[ ] The conclusion that this evidence should not have been admitted, however, is not the same as concluding that reversible error occurred. There is no reasonable possibility that these brief comments on an immaterial issue in any way affected the jury's verdict.
As we have pointed out several times already, the State presented a huge amount of evidence against the appellant. In addition, Hanson was fully subject to cross-examination as to the conversation during which the subjects of the armed forces and making the knife arose. The error was harmless.
WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SEIZED DURING AN ILLEGAL SEARCH OF APPELLANT RENDERED COUNSEL'S ASSISTANCE INEFFECTIVE?
FACTS
[ ] We have already quoted at length from the arresting officer's trial testimony in describing his initial contacts with the appellant. Those contacts resulted in the appellant's arrest after the officer determined the appellant's identity by checking the driver's license in the appellant's wallet. The appellant now contends that his trial counsel was ineffective in not moving to suppress all statements and evidence obtained as a result of the officer's search of his wallet. The appellant's argument focuses on the following portion of the officer's testimony, which takes up after the officer got out of his vehicle to talk to the appellant:
Q: What happened then?
A: We had a brief conversation about his well- being, and I asked him if he would like to warm up inside my patrol car.
Q: And what was the conversation then?
A: He said, Okay. I asked him if he would advance forward, place his hands on my car. I told him that he wasn't under arrest, and I wasn't going to take him to jail. But as my policy indicates, before I place somebody in my patrol car, I have to - I have to pat them down, for safety issues, make sure there is no weapon they are going to harm me with, make sure there is no weapon they are going to harm themselves with once they get inside my car.
Q: Did you inquire of him whether he had any weapons?
A: Yes.
Q: And what did he tell you?
A: He didn't -- he didn't verbally say anything. He did place his hands on my car, and he did allow me to check.
Q: And did you find any weapons on him?
A: Yes. As I began to check, I started with his left side. And as I got down towards his shoulder and the base of the coat, the outer coat, as I attempted to reach in, he moved his arm. I asked him to place his hands back on the car, which he did. Do not - if there's something in there, let me remove it. I'll show you what it is, and I'll place it in front of you. As I entered into his pocket, I did pull out what appeared to be a knife.
Q: Did you find any other weapons on his person?
A: I did.
Q: And what was that?
A: On his right side, in the same pocket - excuse me - not the same pocket, but the pocket on the other side, I pulled out another knife.
Q: Okay. Did you make any attempt to find any identification of this individual?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: And what was that?
A: I found - I located his wallet in his rear pocket, at which time I set it on the hood of my car so that he would know that the contents in his wallet was safe.
Q: Did you ever ask him his identity during the earlier time that you were speaking with him?
A: Yes.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|