 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ingram v. State9/17/2004
This 17th day of September 2004, on consideration of the briefs of the parties, it appears to the Court that:
1. Norman Ingram appeals his conviction in the Superior Court of a variety of drug charges, claiming the trial judge erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for possession with intent to deliver cocaine. Because we find that Ingram's arrest was supported by independent facts justifying the police officer's conduct, we conclude that the trial judge acted within his discretion by denying the motion to suppress. Furthermore, because we find the testimonial and other credible evidence in combination support Ingram's possession with intent to deliver charge, we hold that the State sufficiently established Ingram's intent to deliver cocaine. Accordingly, we affirm.
2. In May 2003, Officers Mentino DiSilvestro and Brian Talley, members of the Governor's Task Force, stopped Ingram's vehicle near Dover for failing to signal a left turn. DiSilvestro noticed a "faint odor" of alcohol, and that Ingram spoke with a low mumbled voice. After determining he had a valid license and no outstanding warrants, DiSilvestro asked Ingram to step out of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests. Citing officer safety reasons, DiSilvestro first performed a pat-down search, which revealed neither contraband nor any weapons. As DiSilvestro began to administer the field tests, he observed two small plastic baggies protruding from Ingram's pocket.
3. Separately, Talley, who intended to on conduct a pat-down search, asked Ingram's passenger, Thomas Cubbage, to step out of the vehicle. Talley discovered cocaine in Cubbage's pocket. After learning that Talley had seized Cubbage's cocaine, DiSilvestro suspected that the plastic bags in Ingram's pocket were drug paraphernalia and arrested Ingram. During a later, more thorough search at the police station, officers seized a small bag of marijuana and two bags of crack cocaine from Ingram's person. The larger bag of cocaine weighed slightly over twenty-five grams. Under the driver's seat of Ingram's car, the officers, in a separate search, discovered a digital scale containing cocaine residue, as well as a roll of toilet paper in the rear of the hatchback.
4. Shortly before trial in December 2003, Ingram moved to suppress the evidence found on his person and in his car. After conducting a suppression hearing, the trial judge denied Ingram's motion. Following a bench trial, the judge convicted Ingram of several drug-related charges, including Trafficking in Cocaine and Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine. [FN1]
FN1. State v. Ingram, Del.Super., I.D. No. 0305008270 (Dec. 2, 2003).
5. On appeal, Ingram challenges the constitutionality of his arrest, contending that the trial judge erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence and that insufficient evidence exists in the record to support his possession with intent to deliver conviction. We review a trial judge's denial of a motion to suppress evidence for abuse of discretion. [FN2] Our review for insufficient evidence requires that we determine whether, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State, any rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [FN3]
FN2. Purnell v. State, 832 A.2d 714, 719 (Del.2003).
FN3. Bialach v. State, 744 A.2d 983, 984 (Del.2000) citing Davis v. State, 453 A.2d 802.803 (Del.1982).
*2 6. Ingram does not contest the legality of the initial stop. Instead, he argues the officers had neither a reasonable suspicion nor probable cause to remove him and his passenger from the vehicle and search them. He insists the purpose of the original stop had concluded, and that
Page 1 2 3 Delaware DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|