Enamorado v. State

аfter the mur- seat was blood stained back judge concluded the inten-

der. The trial robbery perpetration

tional murder enterprise Martinez joint between

was a Rondon, equally

Chavez injustice

culpable, and it would be equally. treated not to be supports the trial court’s

The evidence question is not which of the

findings. The culpable, more but how

defendants was Spazi

culpable Martinez Chavez. ano, 468 U.S. at 104 S.Ct. at

L.Ed.2d at Blackmun Justice reasoned: people’

“Whether or not ‘reasonable could here, nothing differ over the result we see arbitrary imposition

irrational or about the penalty Again, of the death in this case.” responsibil

Justice Blackmun stated: “Our however, second-guess

ity, is not to the def jury’s

еrence accorded the recommendation case, particular in a ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‍to ensure that the but arbitrary dis is not process

result of 465, 104 S.Ct. criminatory.” Id. at to be is the test This L.Ed.2d at 356. or, penalty the death in a review of applied fact, any sentence a trial a matter stan court has set imposes. This making determi applied in this to be dards cases, virtually hundreds of some

nation refers to and cites. majority of which very experi in this case is a judge

The trial He has made his judge. criminal

enced writing comport

findings in I supported by the evidence. and are

law respects. in all judgment affirm

would Sada, and Jose

Maximo ENAMORADO (Defendant Below), Appellants Indiana, Appellee

STATE Below). (Plaintiff

No. 49S00-8607-CR-00694.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March Choate, Haith, T. &

Belle Choate Yisher Turner, Boberschmidt, Miller, Craig L. Turner, P.A., Indianapolis, O’Bryan & for appellants. Pearson, Gen.,

Linley Atty. E. Richard C. Webster, Gen., Atty. Deputy ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‍Indianapolis, appellee. for DICKSON, Justice.

The defendants Maximo Enamorado and dealing Jose Sada were convicted of in co- conspiracy dealing caine to commit cocaine, felonies, A both class lesser felonies violations Indiana Con- Act. The court reduced trolled Substances thirty presumptive years sentence of for each Enamorado’s class felonies to twenty-four years they ordered concurrently. con- served Sada received thirty year current sentences. brought ap- has Each defendant direct peal opinion, shall address in this we challenges fol- regrouping defendants’ lows: sufficiency

1. of evidence intent agreement, and date of dеal search, 2. warrantless arrest and jury inspection of exhibits af- State’s arguably rested ter the without rebuttal, and sentencing. Evidence Sufficiency argue that the evidence necessary intent fails establish only in that deal cocaine “mules,” transport low-level couriers who he drugs for contends that a dealer. Sada coсaine. Chal- possess not did even convictions, the de- lenging their argue that the evidence fails fendants agreement establish the occurrence alleged in the information. did not con- claims that he Sada further cocaine, only rather but spire to deliver Enamorado. accompanied sufficiency of addressing the issue evidence, if affirm the conviction will we evidence and probative considering the ver- supporting inferences reasonable assessing dict, weighing witness without trier fact could Jose “Mexico Joe” Sada claims that credibility, a reasonable guilty defendant be possess conclude that the he not did cocainе because Ena yond a reasonable doubt. Case v. State brought morado it into the motel room. Loyd per liability, For the of criminal 1260, (1980), 272 Ind. capability son has the intent and who denied, cert. 449 U.S. S.Ct. maintaining control over contraband con L.Ed.2d 105. structively possesses it. Fassoth v. State (1988), Ind., 525 N.E.2d 323. Circum 1, 1985, Indianapolis po-

On October care, deteсtive, warrant, management pursuant stantial evidence of the lice to a Wheeling- may prove searched the motel room of John and control over the contraband Upon discovering assorted narcotics possession. ton. constructive v. State Jeffers paraphernalia, the detective arrested However, and (1985), 485 N.E.2d 81. custody, in Wheelington. police While presence mere or association with another Wheelington pending drug described a actually possesses contraband is insuf who himself and His- transaction between two possession. ficient to show constructive returning Flor- panic men who were from (1985),Ind.App., 482 N.E.2d Lewis v. State high-grаde exchange In ida with cocaine. jury reasonably The could infer use, personal for his for some cocaine management control co Sada’s over the Wheelington to “cut” the cocaine and was agreement caine from the between Wheel Wheeling- men in its sale. assist the two defendants, trip ington and thе Sada’s with delivery ton stated that the was to occur Enamorado, cocaine, knowledge of the day within a or two. “Mexico Joe” Wheelington’s pager ar and his call to to Wheelington call on his “Max” were to Furthermore, range delivery. the whereupon he to call them and pager, was accomplice, сriminally responsible is Sada give they so could call them his number prob in for his confederate’s acts done arrange meeting. again and consequence plan. their able and natural On October at about 6:00 a.m. (1987),Ind., 514 N.E.2d Moredock v. State Wheeling- officers took detective and other the motel room and waited for ton tо 35-48-4-1, por- in Ind.Code its relevant § p.m., At ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‍9:00 phone call from the two men. tion, (2) person [pos- “A states: who: ... Wheelington’s pager. “Mexico Joe” called sesses, intent manufacture or deliv- call, Wheelington gave Returning the er, drug or a narcotic ... commits cocaine phone room and “Mexico Joe” the motel drug....” dealing in cocaine or a narcotic responded “Mexico Joe” that he numbers. added). is (emphasis Intent to deliver a “Max” would reach the room about intent to lower threshold than distribute ten or fifteen minutes ten minutes. About drug users. The defendants’ tes- individual defendants, later, Hispanic, and a timony they knew establishes the motel. When arrived car at woman transporting delivery cocaine for were room, three came to Wheelington, regardless of what the ulti- entered, they placed un- knocked and selling arrangement was to have mate a police a officer searched der arrest while been. had carried in. grocery sack Enamorado unwrapped a smaller officer event, any jury could infer bag the sack and found brown within large necessary intent from the amount powder in it. plastic bag with a white clear pos of cocaine the defendants had their powder analysis the white A lab revealed large amount of session. Possession cocaine, grams purity. 272 92.9% in is сircumstantial evidence of narcotics for the State testified

Witnesses probative to deliver. The value tent indicated purity of the cocaine amount increases as the quantity proving intent “stepped on” to “cut” or that it was greater. Montego quantity itself becomes smaller, potent units for sale. less form 76. In v. State fоund in each arresting officers also grams of cocaine was suffi- bag Montego, 83 jacket a small of cocaine. defendant’s deliver. Id. Based searched the sack that Enamorado proof dent intent had car- possess- in. on the drcumstantial evidence ried cocaine,

ing grams could may officer make a wаrrantless defendants’, deliver; infer intent to arrest if he has reasonable and dealing support is sufficient to evidence believe the arrestee has committed convictions. Carter v. State felony. 288; (1984), Ind., Fisher v. State Regarding their convic Fyock tions, evi the defendants assert Ind., 436 N.E.2d 1089. Probable cause for is insufficient to establish the ocсur dence arrest exists where at time arrest agreement alleged rence of the knowledge has the officer of facts and places information. information circumstances which warrant a man of rea agreement on the date of the or about suspect sonable caution to believe a has timing Because October in question. committed the criminal act agreement is not an element essential (1984),Ind.App., Jones State offense, may conspiracy the conviction be 1236, 1239. police rely Where officers aon supported by an information which does tip, probable may third source’s cause be agree of specify precise not the the by established verification of extrinsic evid ment. Brown v. State (1980), Ind.App., reliability ence1 which demonstrates the testi 403 901. Enamorado’s own N.E.2d (1979), Cato v. State tip. of the 272 Ind. mony agree the of establishes existence an 102, 396 N.E.2d 119. Wheeling- Wheelington. From ment with pur acts in testimony ton’s and Sada’s cor information was delivery, of the cocaine the suance by “Mexico call roborated Joe’s” to agreement. part the could infer Sada’s pager and the arrival at the hotel room of Ind., v. (1986), See Isom State 501 N.E.2d men, of Hispanic were wit two which Ind., v. 1074, 1075; (1985), Haynes State police by Indianapolis nessed the officers. suffi 479 N.E.2d 574. The evidence is Breen, pоlice officer Thomas a narcotics support cient to convictions. approximately years, detective for ten testi practice regarding drug of fied common and Search Arrest Warrantless beepers and to move dealers to use voice argue defendants that trial police around from hotеl to hotel to avoid quash denying erred in their motion operandi the same modus detection, as probable and their mo- affidavit cause presented by the facts of this case. Addi They suppress tion claim that evidence. Wheelington tionally, provided had infor police failed to obtain arrest and search mation other crimes which had led to opportunity to when had an warrants drug-related numerous ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‍arrests.2 total do so. involving Wheel ity of the circumstances informant, ington’s prior activities near waited officers predicted as character events approxi- from Wheelington’s motel room operandi typical crimi similar modus p.m. dаy on a mately 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 when transactions, drug nal and the occurrence open. The detective the courts were informant, predicted by of events charge did not seek an arrest search probable adequate combine to constitute uncertainty of what warrant because obviating arrest the need to оbtain cause day hour two men would arrive. presented night, the warrants in the circumstances later that When the two arrived here. while another officer police arrested them Ind., (1987), not disclose We the record does N.E.2d note State 509 Duncanson v. (1983), 182, citing 455 v. State had resulted from Randall whether actual convictions 916, mistakenly "extensive previously provided substitutes N.E.2d Wheel- the information facts”, proper is for “extrinsic facts” ington. phrase. and intended prosecution if also attack the va Even we assume rebuttal, gro search had waived the defendants must

lidity of the warrantless prejudicial Enamorado carried into cery affirmatively sack which demonstrаte error They correctly state that rights motel room. to their substantial before their con- showing State has the burden may victions be reversed. Shaw v. State exception falls an 952; the search within (1986), Ind., Springer 489 N.E.2d v. Savage requirement. v. State warrant (1984), Ind., 463 243. The N.E.2d State 523 N.E.2d 758. reliance on defendants’ White is mis- 257 Ind. police officers have Where prоsecu- placed because involved the White individual, they are apprehend an “evidentiary use of har- tion’s deliberate conducting a limited search for justified in poon” prejudice the defendant’s case. weapons removing or con- case, present the evidence offered control. Mer- the arrestee’s traband within inspection was admissible. The defend- (1986), Ind., 340; v. ritt State inspection of (1981), Ind., ants have not shown how the v. Murrell prejudiced their incidental to an arrest must the exhibits substantial 638. A search contemporaneous rights. with the arrest in both place. Arnold v. State time and State, Jones Imposition Sentence 4- N.E.2d 1236. The defendants claim that the trial court case, prob- officers had In this mitigating failed to consider circumstances the defendants were able cause to believe explain weighing aggra- its and to

bringing into the motel room. To cocaine vating mitigating circumstances. and Sada contraband, any weapons remove is mani- further claims that his sentence searching in the de- justified officers were light in his lеsser festly unreasonable and the sack within Enamorado’s fendants record, prior felony participation, lack of a control. As the warrantless immediate of the deal. and inducement lawful, properly court the trial search was the defendants’ motions. denied imposed concurrent The trial court twenty-four year sеntences on Enamorado Inspection Exhibits Jury’s State’s following year A felonies a six for the class argue that the fol presumptive reduction of each sentence. that lowing colloquy indicates State circumstances, mitigating the trial court As erroneous rebuttal but was rested without record, support of a criminal noted his lаck pass its exhibits ly permitted to thereafter employment, family, for his his continuous jury. jury’s request that he be shown and the we [prosecutor], Mr. when COURT: trial mercy. Enamorado claims that opin- you for lunch were broke his remorse. How court failed to consider you might have rebuttal evi- ion that ever, finding mitigating circum as introduce re- you Do intend tо dence. discretion, the trial is within its stances buttal evidence? negate potentially duty has no court I not intend Judge, do [PROSECUTOR]: v. mitigating circumstances. Stark State present any rebuttal evidence. N.E.2d 43. thing requesting I only that would (sic)that pass the exhibits’ would be finding a mi Despite that Sada had contents, 1,1-A, 2, 3, 4, and and being, quantity, and that the nor criminal record jury. great, purity of the cocaine were and value presump imposed the trial the trial court treated find that We felony and for each properly tive sentence class one for rebuttal and request as concurrently. they be served ordered that inspect the exhibits allowed presumptive imposes a “If the trial cоurt prosecu- in admitted had been explain sentence, obligation to there is no case-in-chief. tion’s State, showing by from this reasons.” Pettiford previously supplied by Wheel- information and that he there- ington was accurate sentence not revise a This Court will tipster. fore a reliable light manifestly unreasonable it is unless the charac- of the offense and of the nature telephone con- The extrinsic facts show of the offender. Hatchett ter does predicted. The conversation tact Ind.Rules for meaning. drug-related terms or not contain of Sentences Rule Appellate Review motel, at the The three then arrived thirty year concurrent receipt of Sada’s grocery in. One carried a sack. walked manifestly is not unreasonable sentences immediately arrested. The three were imposing pre- court’s light of the trial regarding the There was no conversation sumptive sentences. ap- purpose of the visit. The behavior of making telephonе contact pellants in respects. is affirmed all judgment not, entering does when the motel SHEPARD, C.J., and GIVAN apart from the statements of viewed PIYARNIK, JJ., concur. did Wheelington, bespeak illicit conduct as McCray. the behavior

DeBRULER, J., dissents with view, sprung trap my In separate opinion. they had that kind of knowl- here before DeBRULER, dissenting. Justice a man of rеa- edge which would warrant (1967), 386 U.S. McCray v. Illinois believing appellants that caution sonable 18 L.Ed.2d Officer 87 S.Ct. drugs. More carrying contraband were tip from an informant received a Jackson indi- knowledge of facts and circumstances selling in the McCray was narcotics have been cating illegal would corner. The vicinity particular street caution, required by man of reasonable the location and observed officer went to forming en- a belief before people McCray contacts with make several drugs. handling gaged in the of contraband street, McCray walking along the and when jus- no There was therefore away police, quickly he walked sаw there- arrest. The arrests were tifying an buildings. then between two should have illegal product and their fore him, heroin finding in and arrested moved suppressed. been cigarette package. in a establishing ‍‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​‍reliability of The evidence follows. summarized as

the informant was ac- he had been testified that

Jackson approxi-

quainted the informant period the during this

mately year, infor- him with supplied had

informant “fifteen, narcotics activities

mation about least,” the informa- times at sixteen SHAW, Appellant, Cindy had accurate and proved had to be tion and convic- in numerous arrests resulted Indiana, Appellee. STATE tions. 303, 87 at McCray, S.Ct. U.S. No. 43S00-8706-CR-560. 18 L.Ed.2d at 66. of Indiana. Supreme Court contrast, Wheelington’s service Here current, but took informant was not March time, period 19, 1989. and we during prior place May Rehearing Denied had led that his information know that he testified prior arrests. The officer re- had convictions

did not know whether inferred it can be I do not think

sulted.

Case Details

Case Name: Enamorado v. State

Court Name: Indiana Supreme Court

Date Published: Mar 2, 1989

Citation: 534 N.E.2d 740

Docket Number: 49S00-8607-CR-00694

Court Abbreviation: Ind.