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 said she had permission to stay there and had a key.
- Later that night Ezell returned from a walk, believed someone was in the garage, and called police; officers found the front door unlocked/ajar, lights on, and performed a warrantless sweep of rooms where a person could hide.
- During the sweep officers observed two firearms in plain view; while clearing a pistol for safety they noticed the serial number was defaced; photographs of the home and a utility bill linked Rodriguez to the residence.
- Based on the defaced firearms, officers obtained a warrant on July 30 to search the home; subsequent warrant searches uncovered large quantities of methamphetamine under a basement couch and elsewhere.
- At trial Ezell testified (without prior 404 notice) that she and Rodriguez regularly used methamphetamine in the basement and that drugs were kept under the basement couch; Rodriguez was convicted of possession with intent to deliver and acquitted of possession of a defaced firearm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial warrantless entry/search was lawful | Entry justified by exigent circumstances (possible burglary/intruder) and/or consent from Ezell | Warrantless search violated Fourth Amendment; evidence should be suppressed | Court held exigent circumstances (possible burglary) justified the sweep; affirmed denial of suppression |
| Whether Ezell's testimony about drug use was inadmissible prior-bad-acts evidence under Neb. Evid. R. 404(2) | Testimony was intrinsic to charged possession (continuing possession) and directly probative of crime | Testimony was prior bad acts and prejudicial; required 404(3) hearing and limiting instruction | Court held evidence was direct/intrinsic (continuous possession) and admissible without 404(3) limiting instruction |
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing a limiting instruction about the drug-use testimony | State: no limiting instruction required because testimony was intrinsic to the offense | Rodriguez: jury should have been instructed to use the testimony only for proper, non-propensity purposes | Court held no error because testimony was not other-acts evidence; instruction unnecessary |
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct in closing by stating Rodriguez owned the house | State: any comment was not prejudicial; ownership not outcome-determinative | Rodriguez: prosecutor misstated ownership and prejudiced jury; defense objected | Court declined review because closing statements were not part of the bill of exceptions and affidavits were not in the record; no reversible misconduct found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Eberly, 271 Neb. 893 (emergency doctrine/exigent-circumstances framework)
- State v. Perry, 292 Neb. 708 (emergency doctrine discussion)
- State v. Modlin, 291 Neb. 660 (review of trial court evidentiary rulings)
- U.S. v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (example where warrantless entry was unreasonable)
- Hill v. Com., 18 Va. App. 1 (officers reasonably believed burglary in progress; warrantless entry justified)
- U.S. v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (continuing possession — evidence on other dates is direct evidence of possession)
- State v. Freemont, 284 Neb. 179 (discussion on distinguishing intrinsic possession evidence from other-acts evidence)