This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a headlight violation. The driver was arrested for an outstanding warrant after assaulting an officer. The Defendant, appearing intoxicated and disorderly, was placed in a squad car. A search of the vehicle revealed a stolen handgun and drug paraphernalia. At the jail, the Defendant's clothing was forcibly removed, revealing a container with crack cocaine (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court of Lea County: The Defendant was convicted of possession with intent to sell cocaine.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the police lacked justification to take him to jail under the Detoxification Act, that the inventory search and removal of his clothing were improper, that a mistrial should have been declared due to a police officer's comment about other jury trials, and that there was insufficient evidence to prove intent to sell cocaine (headnotes, paras 1, 7, 14, 23-24).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant was lawfully taken to jail under the Detoxification Act, the inventory search was proper, the mistrial was unnecessary as the jury was admonished, and there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction (headnotes, paras 7-12, 14-20, 23-24).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant's detention under the Detoxification Act justified?
- Was the inventory search and removal of the Defendant's clothing lawful?
- Should a mistrial have been declared due to a police officer's comment about other jury trials?
- Was there sufficient evidence to prove the Defendant's intent to sell cocaine?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 25).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Bosson and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
Justification for Detention: The Court held that the Defendant's intoxicated and disorderly behavior, combined with the discovery of a stolen handgun, justified his detention under the Detoxification Act. The officers acted reasonably in transporting him to jail as the least drastic alternative (paras 7-13).
Inventory Search: The inventory search was lawful as it followed standard procedures to protect the Defendant's property, ensure safety, and prevent claims of lost items. The transparent container with cocaine was in plain view, making its discovery lawful under the plain view doctrine. Even if the Defendant had not been forcibly stripped, the container would have been discovered during a lawful inventory search (paras 14-22).
Mistrial: The Court found no error in denying a mistrial. The officer's comment about other jury trials was not deliberately elicited, and the trial court's immediate admonition to the jury cured any potential prejudice (para 23).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court concluded that the evidence, including the Defendant's possession of cocaine, lack of personal use, unemployment, and possession of $157 in small bills, was sufficient to support the conviction for possession with intent to sell (para 24).