State v. Anderton

context applicable theory pre- infringement patent

suits for ownership.14 has no Defendant

supposes and a suit to

ownership rights patent rights governed those would be limitations, which three-year statute of patent to run at time the

began

issued. defendant’s action is barred

Since limitations, we have no need

statute question

reach the merits is a plaintiff purchaser bona fide

whether

for value. court is af- the trial plaintiff.

firmed. Costs to DURHAM, JJ., and J. DUF-

OAKS PALMER, Judge,

FY District concur. J.,

STEWART, the result. concurs in himself,

HOWE, J., having disqualified herein; participate

does not J. DUFFY

PALMER, District sat. Judge, Utah,

STATE of Plaintiff

Respondent, ANDERTON, Lana

Carl L. and G. Appellants.

Defendants and

No. 18506.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Aug. Chemicals, aff'd, (2nd (S.D.N.Y.1975), 14. M T. Inc. v. International & Cir. 1976). Corp., F.Supp. Business Machines

abstracted as follows: Defendants owned and resided in the residence searched officers of the Roosevelt Department Police pursuant to a search warrant. The search produced the following: (3) a. Three planters (4) with four green plants growing in them. (1) b. One paper bag brown contain- ing (2) two each, plastic bags of [sic] which green contained plant material. (1) plastic One bag containing 7.8 ounces of material (1) and one containing 4.1 ounces of material [sic].

c. (1) One paper bag brown contained a large plastic bag which in turn eight (8) contained smaller plastic of bags green plant material. Each of the smaller bags contained approximately (1) one ounce of material. The large plastic bag (1), also contained one [sic] foil-wrapped, chunk óf “hash” which [sic] weighted grams. 10.2 [sic] (1) d. One plastic bag green plant material. (1)

e. One green plant film canister of material. (2)

f. Two roll- packages cigarette ing papers.

It was further that the stipulated plants green plant and the material were in fact marijuana, bags and in reference to the stat- marijuana defendant Carl L. Anderton ed, wife know “My anything doesn’t McRae, Vernal, Robert M. for everything.” this. I came home with appellants. subject trial was that the The evidence at Wilkinson, David L. Lake City, Salt justice search warrant was issued aby plaintiff and respondent. Gale, affidavit John B. peace, Po- Stagg Jeff of the Roosevelt Officer HALL, Chief Justice: lice that a confidential infor- Department Defendants were convicted of the of- “per- had related to him that he had mant fenses of possession marijuana with in- sonally question.” observed the substance in tent to distribute for production value and It was also in the affidavit recited marijuana.1 appeal, they challenge On Stagg extensively had conferred Officer the propriety of the search of resi- who co- previously with the informant had dence, and defendant Lana G. Anderton truthful, him, co- “providing operated challenges the sufficiency of the evidence information, injury gent bodily resultant in her conviction. form preprinted to C.I.” Portions of the court, for insertion of the date sitting allowing The case was tried to the the date without the informant’s observation and jury, partially stipulated facts U.C.A., 1953, In violation of 58-37-8. nor place, to the affiant does not set forth the time and given the information possessed. marijuana were left blank. whom Furthermore, sought to authority since further recited The affidavit residence, vehicle in search a addition resi- was located at defendants’ marijuana the location of the was unknown ad- street dence, was identified to affiant. by dress, in a truck identified pickup and make, model, color license number. and the regarding As observed in Spinelli nighttime purpose stated For the probable notion of cause: posi- he was affiant recited that the and facie show- [Probability, prima not a be- location of the tive of the ing, criminal is the standard of activity with an extensively “I have conferred cause probable judging proba- cause4 ... [I]n nature, who has informant of a confidential issuing are not magistrates ble cause the contained related to me information by by be confined limitations or niggardly herein.” on the their common restrictions use of . at 9:42 The search warrant was issued sense,5 and their determination of 1981, 3, the search p.m. May and probable paid great cause should be def- search night. that same conducted by reviewing erence courts.6 the warrant, and supporting the affidavit 410, 419, 584, 590, 21 393 U.S. 89 S.Ct. seized was property officer’s return 637. L.Ed.2d 27, August by Judge retained Gale until the Applying foregoing standards 1981, over to Offi- they when turned case, the contains ade- instant affidavit prelimi- Embleton for use at the Wayne cer magistrate’s facts to the quate support the circuit court. nary hearing by conducted to issue the war- finding probable cause Thereafter, kept Officer Embleton the doc- whole, Read as a and in a rant. common- trial, uments in his until suffi- way,7 affidavit sets forth sense had not which time he testified that underlying support cient circumstances to been altered. by the conclusions reached the affiant and first the evi- Defendants contend that reliability credibility support have suppressed dence should been because the informant. the affidavit in of the warrant probable Aguilar, failed to state cause for the search the affidavit in this Unlike case in that it did not meet test ob- two-pronged personally recites informant Texas,2 marijuana. Also, Aguilar advanced followed served the the affiant’s States,3 1) that a Spinelli v. United conclusion search of the residence “underlying produce be set would the contraband circumstances” and vehicle recitals magistrate supported forth sufficient to inde- was the further judge the “has me the infor- pendently of the infor- the informant related to validity conclusion, herein,” mant’s mation contained verified that the affiant support his claim that own that “the indi- investigation the informant affiant’s “credible” and his “relia- named herein sells contraband in information was vidual ble.” quantity.” during

Defendants to be urge that the affidavit It is also observed Aguilar appeal, does not meet the test of this in the case of Illi- pendency because Ventresca, 108, 1509, Citing 380 2. 378 U.S. 84 S.Ct. 12 L.Ed.2d 723 United States v. U.S. 5. 741, (1964). (1965). 85 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 684 Citing 3. 393 U.S. 21 L.Ed.2d 637 Jones v. United 362 U.S. S.Ct. 6. (1969). 80 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 697 Romero, Utah, Ohio, Citing Beck v. 379 U.S. 85 S.Ct. Ventresca, supra States L.Ed.2d Gates,8 Supreme the United States The standard nois v. established in Ventresca is commonsense, rigid “two-pronged that of which was Court abandoned stated therein as follows: Aguilar Spinelli test” advanced totality-of-the-cir- reaffirming favor of warrants, for search such as [Affidavits traditionally here, has analysis cumstances the one involved must be tested and cause determinations. probable interpreted by magistrates informed and courts in had this to a commonsense and realistic fashion. doing, say: In so the Court magistrate 380 U.S. at 85 S.Ct. at 745. issuing The task of the is sim- practical, to make a common-sense ply resolution of doubtful marginal [T]he whether, all the circum- given decision cases in area should largely deter- stances set forth in the before preference mined to be accorded him, “veracity” and “basis warrants.11 including supplying hear- knowledge” persons case, The affidavit the instant couched information, probabili- there is a fair say present-tense language as it is in which that contraband or evidence of a crime ty on-going describes criminal activity, clearly particular place. will be found in a And any refutes contention that it was based court is to duty reviewing simply of a applying stale information.12 Further magistrate ensure that had a “sub- espoused commonsense rule in Ventres- concluding]” stantial basis for ... ca, the affidavit on its face a Jones v. probable cause existed. United substantial for magistrate basis to con- States, U.S., at 271 supra, 362 S.Ct. at [80 clude: the information received by flexible, We are convinced that this 736]. the affiant was recent and contemporane- standard will better easily applied ous; 2) that contraband was probably public achieve the accommodation of Anderton; by sessed defendant Carl and 3f private interests that the Fourth Amend- realistically the search should include ment than does the approach residence, only but the vehicle as developed that has from Aguilar Spi- well. nelli. Defendants next contend — — at —-—, U.S. 103 S.Ct. of the affidavit rendered it portions blank 76 L.Ed.2d 527. U.C.A., 78-5-24, light void in § provides: which

The “totality circumstances test” as reaffirmed Gates lends even further by jus- made or issued a Every paper for the conclusion by reached tice, subpoena, must be issued except magistrate in the instant case that probable another; in by without a blank to be filled cause existed for the issuance of the search otherwise it is void.

warrant. question considerable There is some

Defendants also statute to the rely upon foregoing applies Rosencranz v. whether the States,9 which interpreted question appear United since it would States v. Ventresca10 as “a made or issued requiring paper the affi- that it is not davit to “to filled in specifically containing set forth the time of blanks justice” However, the informant’s observations. we do not address that We do not so another.” issue, any a. absence of contention interpret Ventresc for in the Clay, Wash.App. — U.S. —, State v. 8. S.Ct. 76 L.Ed.2d 527 12.In accord: Slayton, (1972); Guzewicz (E.D.Va.1973); Covington F.Supp. (1st Cir.1966). 9. 356 F.2d 310 State, Ga.App. 199 S.E.2d 348 Boudreaux, La., 304 So.2d 343 Supra n. 5. Citing Jones v. United 362 U.S. at 270, 80 at 735. In accord: State v. Rome- S.Ct. ro, supra accepted appellate that the blanks standard part defendants to overturn a any infringed upon permits of in review this Court complained way obliged made to rights, only appear their substantial the Court is conviction when it is en necessarily that reasonable minds must disregard “defect” in the affidavit guilt,14 and we reason of the content of Rule Utah tertain a reasonable doubt Procedure, pro- Rules of Criminal interfere when the evidence is should lacking vides as follows: so and insubstantial reasonable could not have determined possibly men error, defect, (a) Any irregularity beyond a doubt.15 guilt reasonable does the sub- variance which not affect rights party stantial of a shall be disre- Viewing the evidence in the most garded. [Emphasis added.] the trial court favorable do,16 obliged we are this writer con- Defendants also contend that supports con- adequately cludes failure to the search magistrate’s return The quantity viction of both defendants. warrant and the documents to related hashish, which included court after appropriate days within fifteen large marijuana plants, was too live the return on the warrant in execution of consumption, and it was found in personal U.C.A., with 77-23-9 compliance home, the defendants’ owned the documents how Again, rendered void. wife. and resided as husband and ever, showing have made no magistrate’s that the comply failure to trial It was reasonable for the court the any upon statute had effect the facts and circum- adverse infer from attendant contraband, rights, they their substantial nor have particularly stances that the that such failure was in any way compro plants marijuana, plain shown in the potted of integrity the of We mised the documents. It was also to infer from view. reasonable conclude that of the therefore the violation of that stipulation parties the the both de- the statute constituted more than nothing present during fendants were the to a perform failure ministerial act which time L. Anderton vol- defendant Carl did affect the search validity of the that know any- unteered wife doesn’t “my warrant and search conducted thereund about this. I came home with thing Furthermore, er.13 everything.” brief appeal, on concede remaining The on is appeal contention present during were both the search.17 of defendant Lana Anderton that evidence was her of Lana insufficient to convict The fact defendant Anderton charged. rejoinder crimes The not named warrant is of State’s in the search moment, is that not at trial search the evidence no because the resultant convict, sufficient to there an ab- stipulation placed but and the of facts her constructive, actual, sence of substantial or of a possession believable evidence if not generate to necessary reasonable doubt which was large quantity of contraband guilt. distribution. obviously intended for Romero, supra Wright 6; possession 13. State v. n. dence of was insuffi- constructive State, Okl.Cr., (1976); People support 552 P.2d 1157 conviction of defendant cient to Wilson, 173 Colo. However, 482 P.2d 355 viewing the evi- Lana G. Anderton. Wilson, (5th United States v. judg- dence most favorable Cir.1971). court, supports trial ment of the conclu- pres- sion that the was found contraband Fort, Utah, (1977). 14. State v. 572 P.2d 1387 defendants, open ence of both view and Lamm, Utah, each, readily all of which meets State v. accessible to 606 P.2d 229 laid the standards constructive Kerekes, Utah, 16. Davis, States v. of in the case down (D.C.Cir.1977), relied F.2d 681 and others majority. Nevertheless, majority of the con- Court contrary opines the evi- cludes only exculpatory The evidence guilt derton’s for offenses require to the trial court was defendant Carl An- knowledge See, both U.C.A., intent. derton’s assertion “my wife doesn’t 1953, 58-37-8(a) (Supp.1981). Of two know this. I anything just came elements of possession with intent to dis- home with everything.” The trial court tribute, possession must first be shown. apparently discounted the statement as be- While this Court has stated that “[unlaw- ing only chivalry an act of made in an ful possession does not necessarily mean effort to exonerate his wife. the substance be found on the person

It lies within the prerogative of the of the accused or that he have sole and trial court weigh the evidence and deter thereof,” exclusive possession prove con- mine the credibility witnesses, of the possession, structive the evidence must this Court should not substitute its judg show that were “subject to [the ment for that of the trial court on issues of dominion and control.” State v. accused’s] fact supported substantial, that are cred Carlson, Utah, (1981) (foot- P.2d ible and admissible evidence.18 Neverthe omitted).1 session. Chief Justice in affirming Carl Anderton’s Davis, 681, United v. 562 States F.2d 693 conviction of production the crimes of (D.C.Cir.1977). (emphasis original). The marijuana possession and of marijuana with Supreme Virginia Court of has stated that: See, U.C.A., intent to distribute for value. knowing There is no or presumption 1953, 58-37-8(a)(i) (ii) (Supp.1981). & §§ possession marijuana intentional of the However, I believe that there is insufficient occupancy from of the resi- [defendant’s] evidence to convict his wife Lana Anderton. premises dence. Her of the review, The standard of as cited by the cotenant, however, is a factor Chief Justice’s authorizes opinion, considered with other evidence in deter- Court to overturn a conviction when the mining whether she had constructive lacking evidence is so or inconclusive that session. reasonable minds must entertain a doubt of guilt. The evidence in this case is so inade Commonwealth, 447, v. 222 Va. Eckhart 281 quate compel as to such reasonable doubt of 853, (1981) (citations omitted). 855 S.E.2d guilt in the case of Mrs. Anderton. Lawson, also United v. 682 F.2d See States 1012, 1016-18 (D.C.Cir.1982),

The issue here is whether the Evans v. Unit facts (9th Cir.1958). record are sufficient to establish An- Mrs. ed One Lamm, supra 18. guns, drugs searched the bedroom and found paraphernalia, including sealing agent, who, 1. This case involved a husband and wife funnel, plastic bags, measuring spoons, a home, following a warrant search of their were charges against strainer and scales. The charged possession with of a controlled sub- wife were dismissed. stance with intent to distribute. Police officers 1264 with others in participating rule reads as fol fendant was general of the

summary the con enjoyment lows: use the mutual traband”; State, 377 supra, at the defendant is in nonexclusive Ford v. [W]here illicit premises State, on which possession 11 (quoting 581-82 Folk v. A.2d at found, it cannot be inferred drugs are 508, 514-18, 187-89 275 A.2d Md.App. presence of such that he knew of statements, (1971)); 5) incriminating them, had control of unless drugs and States, supra.2 Evans v. United incriminating are statements there other that, Thus, finding construc- it is clear such tending or circumstances to buttress substances in tive of controlled possession an inference. courts settings, nonexclusive occupancy Annot., (1974 Supp. 56 957 & A.L.R.3d detailed factu- have relied on extensive and 1982). contrast,, stipu- the facts as al evidence. In of other in requirement In of the of a confirmation in this case3 consist lated criminating circumstances in addition to owned and resided the defendants mere the facts of each case are occupancy, search was the house where the warrant in detail. critical and must be made, found in that a list of the items factual determinations key Some in two most of which were enclosed construc supported findings which have paper bags, brown and the statement made 1) the tive in other cases are: that his wife by defendant Carl Anderton drugs at the time the presence defendant’s and that he nothing drugs knew found, were on the fact that emphasis with them. The had returned home view, drugs were in see plain open the record only other relevant evidence in Lawson, supra; v. United States regarding testimony consists Davis, State, v. Ford v. supra; States general- amounts of and hashish Md.App. (1977); 377 A.2d 577 Eckhart Commonwealth, supra; 2) v. the defend use.4 kept by personal an individual for ly drugs, ant’s access to the see United States where in the There is no evidence as to Davis, Brown, supra; 80 N.J. State found or where the home the 404 A.2d when the defendant Lana Anderton was see proximity drugs, defendant Moreover, there officers entered the house. State, although “[mjere prox Ford v. supra, conduct incriminating is of any no evidence imity to the controlled substance ... Thus, or statements of Lana Anderton. possession.” insufficient to establish Eck which establishes that nothing there is Commonwealth, supra, hart v. view, or even drugs were in her accessible 855; Wright S.E.2d at v. Common her, participating close to or that she was wealth, (1977) Va. S.E.2d pres- the use or knew of (where defendant, although residing ence in the house. sitting in a apartment, was found in the rec- there is no evidence Similarly, injecting bedroom next to a friend who was knowing which shows Lana Anderton’s ord heroin, quanti himself with and substantial produc- or intentional involvement ties of heroin were found three feet from evidence is marijuana. tion of . defendant; acquit the defendant was where joint that of residence in home despite history ted evidence of of heroin found; nothing to use); 4) indicating evidence the “de there is plants testimony evidentiary 4.That related to use amounts for an factors which have been Other recognized by determining guilt Presumably courts those amounts should individual. cases in- nonexclusive to determine the amounts have been doubled behavior, suspicious previous sale of clude personal consumption of both defend- Annot., drug supra. use. See ants. no evidence offered the State There was except stipula- on this issue for a brief written tion of fact. long plants guilt. how had been about his wife’s Lana Anderton’s there or where were found. conviction should therefore be reversed. case are con- When the facts of this HOWE, JJ.,

sidered, of the cases STEWART and concur particularly above, DURHAM, concurring opinion of faith” to J. “leap cited guilty solely find Lana Anderton is relationship

the basis of her marital joint occupancy

her husband and their In of the lack of other home. view

evidence, self-inculpatory statement that he had “just

made Carl Anderton

brought compels home” doubt notes Lana Anderton’s convic- less, a majority the Court has concluded tion on this charge solely was based on her that the evidence was insufficient to sustain joint ownership and residence in the the conviction of the defendant Lana G. home where the were found. There Anderton, and her conviction is therefore substantial for the rule that reversed. where a defendant is in nonexclusive conviction and of the trial session or occupancy premises court as to the defendant Carl L. Anderton found, which controlled substances are are respects. affirmed in all there must be some additional incriminating evidence to guilt possession: OAKS, J., concurs. proprietary interest in or [P]roof DURHAM, (concurring Justice separately regular premises alone result): is not sufficient to prove constructive pos- I opinion concur with the

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Anderton

Court Name: Utah Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 15, 1983

Citation: 668 P.2d 1258

Docket Number: 18506

Court Abbreviation: Utah