State v. Salvador Rodriguez
296 Neb. 950
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Police responded July 23, 2014 to a domestic disturbance involving Lori Ezell at a house rented by Salvador Rodriguez and Rosa Anguiano; Ezell had keys and stayed there intermittently with her children.
- Later that night Ezell called police saying she returned from a walk and saw lights on, vehicle doors open, and believed someone was in the garage; she asked officers to check the house.
- Officers entered (front door ajar), swept rooms where a person could hide, saw firearms in plain view, cleared a handgun and discovered its serial number had been defaced.
- Based on those observations, officers obtained warrants July 30 and August 2 to search the house; searches pursuant to those warrants recovered large quantities of methamphetamine from under a basement couch and other places.
- At trial Ezell (without pretrial notice under Neb. Evid. R. 404) testified she and Rodriguez used meth in the basement and that Rodriguez kept meth under the couch; defense objected but court admitted the testimony as intrinsic to the charged possession.
- Defendant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver; he appealed, raising suppression, 404 evidence admission/limiting instruction, and alleged prosecutorial closing-argument misconduct about ownership of the house.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Rodriguez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial warrantless entry/search was lawful under the emergency (exigent) doctrine | Officers reasonably believed a burglary/occupant threat existed given Ezell’s report, lights on, and ajar/unlatched door; exigency justified entry and limited search | Entry was not supported by exigent circumstances and thus evidence was fruit of unlawful search | Court held exigent circumstances (possible burglary/hiding intruder) justified the warrantless sweep; suppression denied |
| Whether Ezell’s testimony about using/seeing meth at the house was inadmissible prior-bad-acts evidence under Neb. Evid. R. 404(2) | Testimony was intrinsic to the charged continuing offense of possession and thus admissible without Rule 404 treatment | Testimony was prior bad acts and required 404(b) notice and limiting instruction; admission was prejudicial | Court held testimony was direct evidence of continuous possession (not 404 other-acts); admission proper |
| Whether the court should have given a limiting instruction about permissible use of Ezell’s testimony | State did not seek a limiting instruction; evidence was intrinsic and did not require a propensity-limiting instruction | Lack of limiting instruction allowed jury to use testimony for improper propensity inference, prejudicing defendant | Court held no limiting instruction required because evidence was intrinsic to the continuing-possession charge |
| Whether prosecutor’s alleged closing-argument statement that Rodriguez “owned” the house was misconduct | Any statement about ownership (if made) was not outcome-determinative; ownership was not material to elements beyond possession/dominion & control | Statement misstated facts and prejudiced defendant by implying ownership and greater control | Court declined to consider the claim (closing arguments not in bill of exceptions; affidavits insufficient); no reversible error found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Eberly, 271 Neb. 893, 716 N.W.2d 671 (Neb. 2006) (defines emergency doctrine elements and review standard for warrantless entries)
- U.S. v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1989) (continuous possession across dates is direct evidence of possession, not other-acts evidence)
- State v. Freemont, 284 Neb. 179, 817 N.W.2d 277 (Neb. 2012) (discusses limits of other-acts analysis and temporal connection for possession evidence)
- Hill v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 1, 441 S.E.2d 50 (Va. Ct. App. 1994) (officers may enter without a warrant to investigate possible burglary when door ajar and occupant unresponsive)
- State ex rel. Zander v. District Court, 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656 (Mont. 1979) (upholds warrantless entry to search areas a burglar might hide where door or window indicators and other facts suggested possible burglary)