Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantdiscoveryhearingtrialaffidavitmotion
trialaffidavitmotionwillappellant

Related Cases

Clarke v. Commonwealth, 32 Va.App. 286, 527 S.E.2d 484
View Case »
Hough v. United States, 253 F.Supp.3d 560
View Case »
Council v. Nash, 400 Fed.Appx. 680, 2010 WL 4457931
View Case »
Com. v. Helfant, 398 Mass. 214, 496 N.E.2d 433
View Case »
Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92, 136 S.Ct. 616, 193 L.Ed.2d 504, 84 USLW 4032, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 331, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 262, 25 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 577
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Hennessy v. State, 660 S.W.2d 87

Facts

On February 16, 1978, Officer Earl Musick received a tip about a planned robbery of a doctor selling Dilaudid from his residence. The following day, police arrested three men, one of whom indicated that they would have been caught for robbery and possession of Dilaudid if they had waited. Believing that the defendant and her husband were disposing of contraband, police entered their home and later obtained a search warrant, which led to the discovery of 179 hydromorphone tablets hidden in a potted plant. The defendant admitted to hiding the tablets and was present during their recovery.

On February 16, 1978, Officer Earl Musick of the Houston Police Department received a tip from an informant that he and two other men planned to rob 'an unknown Doctor of Dilaudid [hydromorphone] tablets which he sold from his residence.'

Issue

Did the trial court err in denying the motion to suppress evidence seized during the search, and was there sufficient probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant?

Did the trial court err in denying her motion to suppress the evidence seized in the search.

Rule

The court applied the 'totality of the circumstances' test for determining probable cause, which allows for a flexible approach rather than a strict adherence to the 'two-pronged' test established in Aguilar and Spinelli.

We will determine the validity of the search warrant in the instant case according to the 'totality of the circumstances' analysis of Illinois v. Gates, supra.

Analysis

The court found that the affidavit for the search warrant provided a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed. The informant's information was corroborated by police surveillance and the statements made by the arrested individuals, which indicated that the defendant's residence was involved in the illegal drug activity. The court also noted that the failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing regarding the veracity of the statements in the affidavit was harmless, as there was no evidence of intentional falsehood.

The affidavit reflects that Barnes' information came from direct dealings with appellant's husband at appellant's residence, although Barnes did not specify when he last obtained narcotics there.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of possession of a controlled substance.

The judgment is affirmed.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the conviction based on the sufficiency of the evidence and the validity of the search warrant.

The State prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the conviction based on the sufficiency of the evidence and the validity of the search warrant.

You must be