State v. Salvador Rodriguez
296 Neb. 950
Neb.2017Background
- On July 23, 2014, Officer Wackler responded to a domestic disturbance involving Lori Ezell at a house rented by Salvador Rodriguez and Rosa Anguiano; Ezell had a key and stayed there intermittently with her children.
- Later that day Ezell returned from a walk, reported lights on and someone in the garage, and asked police to check the house; officers found the front door unlocked/ajar and conducted a warrantless sweep of areas where a person could hide.
- During the sweep officers observed two firearms in plain view; while checking the pistol for safety they discovered the serial number appeared defaced; photos of the home and a water bill later tied the house to Rodriguez.
- Based on the defaced firearm, officers obtained a search warrant (July 30) and found large quantities of methamphetamine beneath a basement couch; a second warrant yielded additional methamphetamine.
- At trial Ezell testified (without prior notice under Neb. Evid. R. 404) that she and Rodriguez used methamphetamine together and that drugs were kept under the basement couch; the defense objected but the court admitted the testimony and gave no limiting instruction.
- Rodriguez was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver; he appealed arguing (1) the initial warrantless entry/search was unconstitutional, (2) admission of drug-use testimony was improper other-acts evidence and no limiting instruction was given, and (3) prosecutor misstated ownership of the house during closing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless entry/search was lawful under exigent/emergency doctrine | Officers reasonably believed a burglary or intruder might be present based on Ezell’s report, lights on, and unlocked/ajar door | Warrantless entry into a home absent a warrant was unreasonable; no exigency justified entry | Held: Entry/search justified by exigent circumstances (possible burglary); suppression denied |
| Whether Ezell had authority to consent to the sweep | (Alternate basis) Ezell had common authority as a resident/houseguest with a key | Rodriguez argued consent was lacking or insufficient | Court found reasonable basis to conclude Ezell had common authority but deemed exigency dispositive (no need to decide consent) |
| Whether testimony about Rodriguez’s drug use was inadmissible prior-bad-acts under Neb. Evid. R. 404(2) | State: testimony was intrinsic to charged possession (continuing offense), not other-acts evidence | Rodriguez: testimony showed prior bad acts and should have been excluded or limited; jury needed limiting instruction | Held: Testimony was direct/intrinsic evidence of continuous possession around charged date; admission and lack of limiting instruction not reversible error |
| Whether prosecutor’s alleged closing remark that Rodriguez "owned" the house was prejudicial misconduct | State: remark (if made) was not outcome-determinative; ownership not material to elements and any correction by defense mitigated harm | Rodriguez: statement implied stronger connection to premises and ownership, prejudicing possession/ dominion analysis | Held: Court declined to consider claim because closing argument is not in record; alternatively, any such remark was not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Eberly, 271 Neb. 893 (elements and analysis under emergency doctrine/exigent circumstances)
- Hill v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 1 (warrantless entry reasonable where door ajar and burglary suspected) (441 S.E.2d 50)
- United States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (illustrative case finding insufficient facts to justify warrantless entry)
- U.S. v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (possession as continuing offense; evidence across dates may be intrinsic, not Rule 404(b) other-acts evidence)