Danny Eugene Ivie v. State
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 4876
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Appellant Danny Ivie was convicted of possessing 1–4 grams of heroin, enhanced by two prior felonies for murder and sexual assault of a child, with a 25-year confinement sentence affirmed on appeal.
- Arrest stemmed from a traffic stop based on an anonymous tip; a canine alerted to drugs in Ivie’s vehicle, leading to searches
- Appellant contested that the anonymous tip planted drugs and challenged the stop’s legality
- Evidence included testimony about the anonymous tip, Bullock’s alleged involvement, and Ivie’s failure to testify about prior convictions
- Defense theory relied on suppressing the evidence and suggesting tainted identity; the jury returned a conviction for the heroin possession charge
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop and ensuing detention were lawful | Ivie contends the stop was based on an anonymous tip | State argues two traffic violations justified the stop and canine search | Stop valid; detention reasonable; canine search during lawful stop; suppression denied |
| Whether the court abused its discretion by denying investigator/experts | Need for psychiatric, investigator, and forensic chemist to support defense | Requests were untimely or lacked prima facie showing; court did not abuse discretion | Denied for all three requests; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether exclusion of certain testimony prejudiced the defense | Excluded testimony could identify tipster and bolster defense | Testimony was speculative or irrelevant; risk of prejudice | Exclusion not an abuse of discretion; testimony not sufficiently probative |
Key Cases Cited
- Balentine v. State, 71 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- State v. Kelly, 204 S.W.3d 808 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (deference to trial court facts; de novo law application)
- Weide v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of review for suppression; light most favorable to ruling)
- Davis v. State, 947 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (traffic stops require objective basis and permissible detention scope)
- Kothe v. State, 152 S.W.3d 54 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (authority to question information and warrants during stop; permissible inquiries)
- Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) (duration of detention must be cooperative with stop purpose)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983) (reasonableness of canine/sniff during lawful stop)
- Tasby v. State, 111 S.W.3d 178 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003) (detention justified by in-presence traffic violations)
- Williams v. State, 958 S.W.2d 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (threshold showing for appointment of experts must be concrete)
- Rey v. State, 897 S.W.2d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (defensive theory must be supported with evidentiary showing to justify experts)
- Quinones v. State, 592 S.W.2d 933 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (discovery rights and materiality of requested evidence)