STATE OF LOUISIANA VS LINZIE SCOTT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2006 KA 0623 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS LINZIE R SCOTT Judgment if rendered December 28 2006 Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of Washington Louisiana Trial Court No 03 CR3 88646 Honorable Raymond Childress Judge WALTER P REED ATTORNEYS FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY STATE OF LOUISIANA KATHRYN LANDRY SPECIAL APPEALS COUNSEL BATON ROUGE LA CARL A PERKINS COVINGTON ATTORNEY FOR LA DEFENDANT APPELLANT LINZIE SCOTT BEFORE PETTIGREW DOWNING AND HUGHES JJ PETTIGREW J The defendant of Linzie R Scott possession with intent 40 967 A and 1 violation of La against him denied as pled 40 966 E not State guilty on both counts was imposed offender on count I the sentence the defendant court erred reasonable II would in 4 now was forced to a was found or suspension of to run twenty years on count I application was a adjudged at hard labor stop the defendant 3 habitual a fourth felony third felony a previously 1 sentence follows error as failure to disclose the reasons Officer the trial 2 because there was no the State did not meet its burden of to distribute cocaine with the evidence and testimony presented at trial proving the defendant guilty of third offense the trial court erred in The habitual offender sentence is deemed to contain the for the first two years of the sentence sentence The court vacated concurrently with the habitual offender to suppress the evidence on On count II sentence concurrently with the was He the first two and ordered that the sentence s was guilty as charged appeals designating nine assignments of 5 a 9j7 2004 unpublished hearing the defendant the State did not meet its burden of parole hearing the motion court but his writ 1 Cir jury trial he a resign from the Washington Parish Sheriff s Office possession of marijuana 1 Following App prejudiced by the State to RS count II sentenced to ten years at hard labor sentenced to run count of La in connection with count I the State filed denying the motion suspicion proving intent a previously imposed on count was was violation against the defendant alleging he Following The defendant Lentz La probation parole bill of information habitual offender and 1 was Thereafter a possession of marijuana sentenced to ten years at hard labor habitual offender imposed Following he I one He moved to suppress the evidence to be used Scott 2004 1724 v years without the benefit of he 3 count sought supervisory relief from this On count I both counts cocaine unlawfully and illegally obtained The defendant denied was to distribute count of third offense one 5 R charged by bill of information with was See La denying the provision 5 R 15 301 1 A 2 of La R S motion for 40 967 B new 4 b trial denying because witness who a trial court erred in was unavailable for trial finding the defendant the State did not meet its burden of 8 the trial court erred in accepting that exceeded the instruction to to be a fourth2 felony habitual offender Detective Royce McGhee as an s allowing expert testimony from McGhee affirm the convictions the habitual offender s For the answer the 7 fingerprint police officer a to reasons adjudication and the in expert permissible limits of expert testimony and in failing disregard Detective 6 proving the defendant s prior felony convictions court erred in analysis and 9 the trial subsequently became available give a proper that follow we sentences FACTS On July 24 2003 Washington Parish Drug Task Force Officers Lieutenant Lentz Detective Goings and Deputy Godwin crime and drug activity and another man standing approximately 8 25 p near a car in the m areas Following transaction A a chase of Bogalusa known for high Lieutenant Lentz saw the defendant parking lot of the Honeycomb Lounge exchanging something between themselves in men were cocaine At patrolling were an the defendant threw down apparent hand to hand drug 4 8 grams of approximately subsequent pat down search of his person also revealed the front left The a bag of marijuana in pocket of his pants and 215 00 in the front right pocket of his pants DISCOVERY VIOLATION In assignment of Lentz s concerning Lieutenant to the error number 1 the defendant argues that the information resignation should have been made available to him prior morning of trial Prior to trial the defense moved for 51 has discovery and particulars to wit Describe in detail any and all evidence or information that the State either in its possession of which it has knowledge of that would arguably tend defense or to exculpate or help defendant in the preparation of his impeach any witness the State intends to use in this to prosecution On the morning of trial defense counsel indicated he that Lieutenant Lentz 2 The defendant was no adjudged was under the impression longer worked for the department and left under less than ideal a third felony habitual offender 3 circumstances Defense counsel indicated he had been told Lieutenant Lentz under pressure but not due to any sort of would draw into made reflect a formal on illegal question his credibility and reliability request for Brady material Lieutenant Lentz s and not for any reason as a in connection with that reason Defense counsel witness anything integrity reliability and truthfulness resigned as an at all that would officer of the law The State indicated And I think just that the only additional thing that I notified counsel of and are on the record before we got on the record was that he had that it had to do with his relationship with a female person and resigned that that person had drug charges pending against her at this time or at the yeah at this time and before that we Defense counsel did not timeliness or on defense counsel object to the disclosure any other basis and did not cross move for any for the sheriff s office and if not the circumstances monetary reasons Initially we and now worked for the alleged discovery violation An unless or ruling surrounding his leaving that office Tangipahoa Parish Sheriffs Office irregularity lodge a or error order of the court Accordingly the instant assignment of error and the cannot be availed of after verdict was made La grounds therefor assignment of error was to the contemporaneous objection or known to the court the action which he desired the court to take the action of the court At trial discovery sanction resigned from the Washington Parish Sheriffs Office for note the defense failed to at the time the the basis of on concerning whether he still worked examined Lieutenant Lentz Lieutenant Lentz indicated he by the State not sought the party made or of his objections to P Code Crim art preserved for appeal 841 This is without merit MOTION TO SUPPRESS In assignment of error number 2 Lieutenant Lentz at the motion to suppress trial the hearing He also argues the abandonment of the because there was an actual and imminent defendant argues the was drugs testimony of inconsistent with his was the result of an testimony illegal seizure stop The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Louisiana Constitution at protect persons against unreasonable searches and 4 5 of the seizures A defendant adversely affected may the merits on 703 A the ground that it A trial court s ruling weight because the district the move to was citizens implicate State Fourth detention State 671 writs denied 676 10 27 00 officer may v 2000 1105 Ohio 1 in criminal conduct or is wanted a limited investigation of custodial at 8 interrogation La where concerns 7 8 La a 11 3 00 1 Cir to interactions there is no 772 SO 2d 122 coercion or 763 So 2d 2000 2308 La 772 So 2d 663 88 S Ct 1868 for 20 L Ed 2d 889 an past criminal provides that person even App 841 SO 2d 791 App 1 Cir 12 28 99 10 27 00 an 1968 the police objectively reasonable suspicion acts or is about to be engaged Louisiana Code of Criminal officer s reasonable However reasonable suspicion of crime allows suspicion is insufficient to justify though the interrogation is investigative at the third tier a custodial Pennison 99 0466 article 213 cause uses the phrase reasonable needed to make reasonable cause constitutional standard a full the officer must have arrest to believe that the person has committed The La 763 So 2d at 676 Lastly 3 4 p La 4 21 03 supported by specific and articulable facts that the person is Procedure article 215 1 A great communications between officers and person if the officer has a art investigatory stop recognized by the United States Supreme 392 U S briefly seize mere 99 0466 pp 772 So 2d 658 2000 0298 La Terry 2001 0908 2002 2989 Amendment Pennison At the second tier the Court in Jones v At the first tier police no v Code Crim P analysis governs the Fourth Amendment s application between citizens and at the trial on opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh court had the 835 SO 2d 703 706 writ denied A three tiered La unconstitutionally obtained use motion to suppress the evidence is entitled to on a credibility of their testimony 11 8 02 suppress any evidence from a crime cause 3 custodial arrest probable Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure The probable requires more or reasonable than the reasonable cause standard of Article 213 is To read Article 213 article afoul of the Fourth Amendment as cause equivalent to probable cause under the general federal allowing an arrest on less than probable cause would put the Pennison 99 0466 at 8 5 5 n 763 So 2d at 676 5 n suspicion needed for a brief Pennison 99 0466 at 8 9 763 So 2d at investigatory stop 676 The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that in regard to brief stops the level of suspicion required to justify the stop need only rise to level of objective justification stop reviewing a In totality of the to the inferences and deductions of a trained of See State circumstances as understood to the police an not in terms by those versed in the field of law Huntley 97 0965 p 3 La 3 13 98 v giving deference police officer that might well elude weighing the circumstances known library analysis by scholars but enforcement minimal some determining whether sufficient suspicion existed for the court must consider the untrained person while also investigatory 708 So 2d 1048 1049 per curiam State Belton 441 So 2d 1195 v 104 S Ct 2158 80 L Ed 2d 543 response to the sight of a 1984 1198 La 1983 recognized that flight police officer denied cert nervousness by themselves insufficient are investigatory stop but nevertheless may be highly suspicious along with other facts and circumstances 835 So 2d at 707 0908 at 5 however refusal to cooperate for purposes of the Fourth Amendment 4 26 02 La 815 SO 2d 818 123 S Ct 312 154 L Ed 2d 211 It is well settled that if into the citizen be s a stop of person In such s there is cases custodial rights Tucker 626 So 2d 707 an per curiam an 119 State cert v denied 2001 Jones 124 25 a mere Lewis 537 120 2000 s U 922 property is abandoned without any prior unlawful intrusion of the Louisiana Constitution also v justify 2002 While the Fourth Amendment State to right to be free from governmental interference then such property may lawfully seized violation of 821 startled or a flight is not the equivalent of 676 p 4 inquiry 528 U S S Ct 673 3136 2000 Wardlow v s U 953 and may be considered in the reasonable cause Under Illinois 145 L Ed 2d 570 466 individual is imminent Jones no expectation of privacy and thus 2001 0908 at 7 835 So 2d at 708 protects individuals from actual stops Article proteCts 712 La individuals from 1993 In the focus must be 6 no imminent actual determining whether on the an 1 9 5 stops actual degree of certainty that the individual will be of actually stopped as a result of the certainty may be ascertained by examining the attempting the stop that It is only when the police regardless of the individual stop of the individual imminent Although the extent of come virtually certain that is exhaustive non extent of attempts to flee s the actual an an actual been surrounded 1 their weapons drawn motorized vehicles whether the whether the 4 during the where the encounter takes Jones 3 an actual of the individual is in assessing virtually was proximity of the police in whether the individual has police approached the individual with police and the individual or foot are on 5 the location and characteristics of the encounter or in area place and 6 the number of police officers involved in the 2001 0908 at 7 8 835 So 2d at 708 Prior to trial the defendant moved to suppress the evidence to be used unlawfully and illegally obtained as 2 in individual with such force stop the degree police force employed following factors may be useful stop of the individual by the police This elude the encounter or relation to the defendant at the outset of the encounter him an upon encounter police force employed and determining whether that force certain to result in encounter police Following a hearing the motion was against denied Washington Parish Sheriff s Office Lieutenant Raymond Lentz testified at the hearing and Deputy Godwin activity man the motion to suppress on At were patrolling approximately 8 15 p standing On near a car in the July 24 2003 Lieutenant Lentz Detective Goings areas m of Bogalusa known for high crime and drug Lieutenant Lentz between themselves something transaction Lieutenant Lentz instructed Detective and stated men in an Goings apparent to here I need to talk to you across the front of it stop their vehicle the defendant threw something down and stay with the The defendant man and Lieutenant Lentz and Detective Lieutenant Lentz He also had his The badge on was men were hand to hand Lieutenant Lentz exited the vehicle identified himself come Sheriff written the defendant and another parking lot of the Honeycomb Lounge exchanging talk to the saw as a Lieutenant Lentz instructed he could police officer wearing his side so drug a The shirt with man with Deputy Godwin to quickly walked away and then began running away Goings pursued him 7 The defendant had his hand in his right front pocket down a large bag of cocaine defendant Lentz The defendant Lieutenant Lentz Lieutenant Lentz and Detective then retrieved the subsequently discovered The pants stopped washing the man car a cocaine and large oak a approximately was tree and threw ten feet away from the Goings handcuffed the defendant Lieutenant arrested the defendant Lieutenant Lentz bag of marijuana in the front left pocket of the defendant s with the defendant seen in front of Lieutenant Lentz was not subsequently claimed he had only been questioned concerning whether he had his gun drawn while he chased the defendant The trial court denied the motion to suppress At trial Lieutenant Lentz gave similar testimony to the the hearing an apparent hand on the motion to suppress but did not to hand Lentz added that the near man drug transaction at initially indicate that he had witnessed in his Also with the defendant testimony he had given testimony washing the was car at trial they Lieutenant were standing He also indicated he and his fellow officers did not have their weapons drawn when they exited their vehicle Defense counsel his testimony at the cross concerning the discrepancies examined Lieutenant Lentz suppression hearing and he understood defense counsel to be at trial Lieutenant Lentz explained at trial asking him whether he had initially gone Honeycomb Lounge to check on the bar and the when he stated the man with the defendant was general He also area washing the car in he to the explained that was referencing information that he learned after the fact In the instant case under circumstances that did not was required for the attempted The defendant was was So 2d at 712 L Ed 2d 690 a At this signal official detention stage no justification encounter with the defendant actually stopped not since he neither submitted to until he initially approached the defendant in public Lieutenant Lentz before he abandoned the cocaine police show of authority nor was he physically contacted captured by Lieutenant Lentz and Detective Goings citing California v Hodari D 1991 8 499 s U 621 111 See Tucker S Ct 1547 626 113 Nor cocaine actual was an The defendant the encounter he stop of the defendant imminent before he abandoned the was at least several feet away from the surrounded was not not have their weapons drawn when chased the defendant on foot by the two officers place locations for the defendant to conceal himself numerous abandoned without any transaction in a ie reasonable night Therefore in an area the cocaine an apparent participation s his area in a ignoring police commands actual an was hand to hand to investigatory stop prior See Lewis 2000 3136 at 5 815 So 2d at 821 This stop to Lieutenant drug stop his running pocket and his headlong flight from Lieutenant Lentz gave suspicion for with to be free from totality of the circumstances known the defendant high drug traffic with his hand in his at police officers lawfully seized was imminent the was Lentz at the time the two assuming the pursuit of the defendant signaled that even of the defendant 4 prior unlawful intrusion into the defendant s right governmental interference and Moreover chasing him the officers did they exited their vehicle and the incident took at the outset of police rise to to the abandonment of the cocaine assignment of error is without merit SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF OF INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE COCAINE In assignment of error 4 8 grams of cocaine in his to distribute cocaine substance possession citing State Elzie involved 343 So 2d at 713 number 3 a conviction for one was mere insufficient evidence of possession with intent on the defendant percent of cocaine possessed the cocaine with the intent as s proof that he had possession with intent Elzie 343 SO 2d 712 716 717 v The State relied containing the defendant argues La 1977 to distribute cocaine possession of 18 7 grams of to distribute Elzie 343 So 2d at 714 715 customary the 4 residue of cocaine found in it mixture the evidence is in fact to the presence of this substance Neither Lieutenant Lentz not Detective weapons drawn at the time they captured Goings The noting The defendant at the time of the search had stated that the substance Absent evidence that the 1 a circumstantial evidence the defendant supreme court in Elzie reversed the conviction and sentence lactose Elzie was was a for street sales contrary only minute quantities of containing were the defendant 9 questioned concerning whether they had their cocaine is sniffing more consistent cocaine with possession for personal use than with possession for distribution purposes in mixing or Elzie 343 So 2d at 715 Elzie is distinguishable possession of the defendant of the the instant The instant defendant and another man subsequently threw down for crack cocaine This The State established the defendant a drug transaction that the defendant pieces of cocaine consistent with cocaine held for sale than with Additionally error is s the saw Detective Goings testified he the saw something which Lieutenant Lentz recovered and identified assignment of in Further testimony from Lieutenant Lentz that he was more use the basis cocaine to establish 4 8 grams of cocaine and that the size of the cocaine on residual amount of cocaine a apparently conducting by the defendant defendant throw down of the mixture found in the rely solely upon the weight of the with thrown down personal use the basis of the residual amount of cocaine in intent to distribute the cocaine s to distribute cocaine held on did not involve the State did not case the defendant case rejected proof of his intent to distribute cocaine not as weight of the mixture but rather the mixture intent That decision as without merit SUFFICIENCY OF PROOF OF THIRD OFFENSE POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA In support of assignment of Probation and Parole Officer Benito defendant pled guilty charge and a At trial recovered a Lopez conceding he in connection with a March 12 Lieutenant Lentz testified that while was not 1988 testimony from present at the time the possession of marijuana the State introduced into evidence official records from 90CR45183 1988 and count II documenting count I possession of marijuana The State also Officer patting down the defendant he bag of marijuana from the front left pocket of his pants Thereafter Lopez number 4 the defendant cites February 28 1988 possession of marijuana charge small Parish docket error on possession of marijuana Washington on March 12 February 28 1988 presented testimony from Probation and Parole Officer Benito Lopez indicated he supervised the defendant 10 in connection with Washington Parish docket convicted On those counts on the defendant on pled guilty On redirect examination and II and the defendant was Officer the defendant personally present when Lopez indicated although he on not was Washington Parish docket guilty pleas s was not 1990 present when the defendant pled guilty counts I and II Lopez conceded he June 18 on I June 18 1990 examination Officer cross counts 90CR45183 personally 90CR45183 reflected in the minutes of the were proceedings and he Officer Lopez had supervised the defendant in connection with the convictions The State instant sufficiently established that in addition the defendant had two case assignment of error to possessing marijuana in the prior convictions for possession of marijuana This is without merit MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL In assignment of error number 5 the defendant argues the trial court failed to properly inquire into the alleged newly discovered evidence before denying the motion for new trial Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 851 in pertinent part provides The motion for a new trial is based on the supposition that injustice has been done the defendant and unless such is shown to have been the case the motion shall be denied upon what no matter allegations it is grounded The court on motion of the defendant shall grant a new trial whenever New and material evidence that 3 of reasonable during the trial trial it would diligence by the defendant notwithstanding the was is available and if the evidence had been introduced at the probably have changed the verdict Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 854 A motion for contain exercise not discovered before or a new allegations of fact trial based sworn to showing 11 on or judgment of guilty provides ground 3 of Article 851 shall by the defendant or his counsel 1 That 2 The notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the defendant the new evidence was not discovered before or during the trial statement of the names newly of the witnesses who will 3 The facts which the witnesses 4 That the witnesses the court or are or Prior to or evidence a concise evidence will establish are not and beyond the process of otherwise available The newly discovered whereabouts newly discovered evidence constitute testify and discovered evidence sentencing the defense moved for or residence of witness do not a trial alleging of this matter new 1 Counsel has discovered since the trial the following evidence eyewitness Cramer DysonL who was not available for trial after diligent research by defense counsel has now come forward Mr Dyson was on the scene of the alleged crime and was arrested along with Mr Scott his testimony contained material evidence and should be considered 1 An in a The n ew trial straightforward t rial court denied all motions for new trial I don t know that it would be necessary for S t his stating me to hear any rather is argument on that There trial abuse of discretion in the denial of the Article 851 3 Notwithstanding any other failed to State was no deny the reasons to provide any facts that Dyson would establish v Mince assignment of 97 2947 error p 4 La 5 29 98 motion for new motion for trial new the motion See La Code Crim P art 854 3 714 So 2d 684 686 per curiam This is without merit HABITUAL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION In adjudged same 5 assignment of a day third error number 6 the defendant argues felony habitual offender because he pled guilty citing State An additional motion for new ex trial rei Mims not filed on v Butler the basis of record 12 newly 601 So 2d he was incorrectly to various bills 649 discovered evidence La on 1992 the on also appears in the rehearing In assignment of offered to prove his identity as error the number 7 the defendant argues the person convicted of the same testimony of Officer Lopez and the records from the clerk of of number error the 8 defendant argues qualifications necessary to be admitted no training other than having taken as an connection with count I 90CR245182 count I count II predicate docket 90CR245692 30 1990 2 felonies for La the 10 3 predicate basis of effective on the Acts No 218 same was 1 17 case on no assignment the possess experience and felony habitual offender in February 28 1988 and on 1988 and Washington Parish possession of marijuana on on April June 18 1990 precede the commission of subsequent State Johnson v was n 15 529 1 B was to October 19 2004 day prior committed 2003 2993 18 p incorrectly decided amended m shall be counted See 2005 La Acts No 218 on n on ultiple as one 1 July 24 2003 prior to the effective date of Additionally the applicable habitual offender provisions La 4 14 04 July 24 2003 Under the predicate offenses Contrary March 12 the date the defendant committed the offender law in effect controlled this not the Washington Parish docket held that Mims RS August 15 2005 La Parker 2003 0924 p three on to prior convictions had The instant offense on third pled guilty to predicate Nos 1 2 and 3 conviction for the purpose of this Section those in effect did was incomplete legislative record and expressly overruled the decision convictions obtained 2005 La a the basis of second offense 884 So 2d 568 579 however an McGhee possession of cocaine sentencing enhancement purposes 19 04 Thereafter on possession of cocaine The defendant Under Mims 1 In court s office expert because he had adjudged was instant offense predicate prior offenses week seminar a one The record reflects the defendant Officer only evidence underlying offense 871 So 2d 317 327 as are State v Accordingly the habitual interpreted by Johnson rather than Mims applicable law there was no bar to the State using all to enhance the instant offense to the defendant s argument the record reflects that testimony of Officer Lopez and the records from the clerk of in addition to the court s office the State presented testimony from Washington Parish Sheriffs Office Detective Royce McGhee 13 to establish the 2 identity of the defendant Detective McGhee hearing He Washington the person convicted under fingerprinted the defendant Parish docket Nos Detective McGhee same 90CR245182 He had attended a indicated he weeklong FBI and day of the habitual offender 90CR245692 was a crime scene specialized training at the Slidell Additionally as a These years the in fingerprint examination State assignments of He was then Following his certification he had He had also received Academy and the Louisiana State Police Training Post fingerprints for thirty five years and seven concluded investigator and evidence performed fingerprint examination for the sheriffs department fingerprint training and sponsored fingerprint comparison class fingerprint comparison and classification Academy 1 and individual He also indicated he had received certified in the on predicate Nos comparee the defendant s fingerprints to those taken in connection with fingerprints belonged to the officer as trooper with the narcotics section as warden of the error are he had taken parish jail he took fingerprints for without merit IMPROPER TESTIMONY In assignment of exceeded the limits of error number 9 the defendant a general matter i f scientific technical assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence qualified expert may testify Code Evid art 704 issue to be decided a trial in the form of an a opinion or jury to other or to was disregard the defendant s but the guilt 807 So 2d 208 212 cert denied State determine 537 U S witness is not v 846 for sale answer a fact in issue Irish an permitted 2000 2086 123 S Ct 185 a Under La La Code Evid art 702 expert Lentz specialized knowledge will judge may admit expert testimony that embraces by the trier of fact to the ultimate issue of 1 15 02 Lieutenant permissible testimony by stating that the cocaine and also argues that the trial court failed to instruct the As argues pp ultimate to testify 5 6 La 154 L Ed 2d 73 2002 At trial Lieutenant Lentz indicated that Washington Parish Drug Task Force on July 24 2003 he He had been involved nineteen years and had been involved in narcotics 14 was in charge of the in law enforcement for investigations for three years He had attended the basic two week narcotics Training Academy He had also attended Sheriffs Association and the certified in investigators numerous course at the Regional Counter Drug seminars sponsored by the Louisiana Regional Organized Crime Information Center processing clandestine laboratories At the seminars and as a He was result of his experience working with the drug task force he had learned how crack cocaine manufactured interdiction The tried court accepted Lieutenant Lentz manufacturing sale and packaging of illicit drugs Lieutenant Lentz indicated the defendant threw down of the cocaine was cooked down someone sold on street level expert in the as an was it in the form of out in came would smoke in a included three larger pieces and had 20 use or more question as question and the defense objected cross a gram and by the defendant 250 300 t hat 2 The defense objected to the The trial court allowed the ruling quantity is for sale answer was The defense definite it was objected for sale jury right there has been an objection lodged which I have sustained consistent with tenth of consistent with cocaine held for examination is it consistent but the was The court instructed the All was more to the court s Lieutenant Lentz answered witness approximately consistent with cocaine held for sale being outside the scope of arguing the question one that the State asked Lieutenant Lentz if State Exhibit containing the three larger pieces of cocaine personal manufactured and The cocaine thrown down street value of a was Some A rock of cocaine cookie a pipe weighed approximately 10 and On redirect examination When crack cocaine round circle called a crack the street for between cookie a 4 8 grams of cocaine personal use recollection is correct that that I think the to the response from the question was Is it more and his response may have been if my for sale and ultimately that is the issue was that you would need to decide so we are going to strike his answer as non responsive and if you want to pursue this line of questioning further you can go ahead In response to further Exhibit 2 was questioning by the State Lieutenant Lentz indicated State not consistent with experience and training it was more personal use and consistent with 15 in his opinion and based an amount that is on his commonly sold No reversible mitigated prejudice instruction This CONVICTIONS error occurred to the The trial court limited the defendant from assignment of HABITUAL error any expert testimony and improper testimony with a limiting is without merit OFFENDER AFFIRMED 16 ADJUDICATION AND SENTENCES
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
