State v. Salvador Rodriguez
296 Neb. 950
| Neb. | 2017Background
- On July 23, 2014, houseguest Lori Ezell (who had a key and kept personal items there) called Officer Wackler saying she feared an intruder at the home rented by Salvador Rodriguez and Rosa Anguiano; officers found the front door not fully latched and lights on.
- Officers conducted a warrantless sweep of areas where a person could hide; in plain view they observed a pistol with an obliterated serial number and an altered shotgun; they cleared the pistol for safety.
- Based on the altered firearms observed during that warrantless entry, officers obtained a search warrant on July 30, 2014, and later a second warrant; searches pursuant to the warrants recovered substantial methamphetamine (≈340 grams) from beneath a basement couch.
- At trial Ezell testified (without pretrial notice under Neb. Evid. R. 404) that she and Rodriguez used methamphetamine together in the basement and that he stored drugs under the couch; defense objected at trial but the court admitted the testimony as intrinsic to the charged offense and declined a limiting instruction.
- Rodriguez was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver; acquitted of possession of a defaced firearm. He appealed, arguing (1) suppression of evidence obtained after an unconstitutional warrantless search, (2) erroneous admission of prior-bad-acts evidence and absence of a limiting instruction, and (3) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument about house ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the initial warrantless entry/search was lawful under the emergency (exigent) doctrine | Police: officers reasonably believed a burglary/occupant danger existed given Ezell’s report, lights on, and door not fully latched | Rodriguez: facts did not support a reasonable belief of an emergency or burglary, so entry violated Fourth Amendment | Held: Warrantless entry justified by exigent circumstances (possible burglary); suppression denied |
| Whether Ezell had authority to consent to the warrantless search | State alternatively: Ezell had common authority as a houseguest with a key and belongings | Rodriguez: Ezell lacked authority to consent to nonconsensual entry by police | Held: Court affirmed on exigency grounds and did not need to resolve consent issue |
| Admissibility of Ezell’s testimony about shared meth use and storage under couch (Rule 404) | State: testimony was direct, intrinsic evidence of continuous possession leading up to charged date, not other-acts evidence | Rodriguez: testimony was prior-bad-acts evidence requiring 404 procedures and limiting instruction | Held: Testimony was intrinsic to a continuing-possession offense; admission not error and limiting instruction not required |
| Alleged prosecutorial misconduct in closing (statement that Rodriguez owned the house) | Rodriguez: jury was misled about ownership, affecting possession/dominion inference | State: ownership remark not outcome-determinative and no record of closing; no preserved record of alleged misconduct | Held: Cannot review unrecorded closing remarks/affidavit; no reversible misconduct shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (articulates standard of review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Eberly, 271 Neb. 893 (defines emergency doctrine/exigent-circumstances test and scope of interior exigent searches)
- State v. Perry, 292 Neb. 708 (burden on State to prove exception to warrant requirement)
- State v. Freemont, 284 Neb. 179 (discussion regarding when possession evidence is intrinsic vs. other-acts evidence)
- U.S. v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (possessions on dates other than charged date can be direct evidence of a continuing possession offense)