State v. KroutState v. Krout
- Reporters:
- , , ,
- Before:
- Miller
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County.
Defendant was indicted and convicted on three counts involving aggravated trafficking in drugs, distributing a controlled substance with reasonable cаuse to believe it was intended for sale by another, and possessing a controlled substance in an amount exceeding the bulk amount but less than three times that amount.
In his appeal to this court defendant sets forth two assignments of error.
Additional facts necessary tо the resolution of each assignment of error will be set forth thereunder.
Assignment of Error No. 1: “The trial court erred in overruling the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress evidence which consisted of a test kit containing white powder and a plastic bag containing white powder substance, filed on March 4,1980
*6
for the reason that the Search Warrant, the Affidavit for Search Warrant and Journal Entry for Search Warrаnt as well as the purported inventory, do not comply with Rule 41, Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and O.
Defendant argues either in his brief, or by refеrence therein to the hearing on the motion to suppress, three separate issues under this assignment of error.
First, it is noted that the warrant directs that the search be for “a quantity of cocaine believed to be approximately two ounces, and Two Thоusand One Hundred Dollars ($2,100.00) in the following denominations * * *.”
Actually seized was an alkaloid analysis kit, a spoon containing white powder and a plastic bag containing white powder which proved to be cocaine.
Defendant first contends that the cocaine and the test kit were not subject to seizure under a search warrant in that there was no indication that they were used as a means to сommit a crime or that they were intended to be used in committing a crime.
The cocaine was specifically set forth in the warrаnt as an object of the search. Possession of the cocaine was unlawful under
Although the test kit was not specifically mentionеd in the warrant, there was no evidence at the hearing on the motion to suppress that it was not in plain view at the time of its seizure or that it was kept for use in any other manner than that for which it was intended, i.e., testing for the presence of cocaine and the ratio of cocaine to other materials in the mixture.
We conclude that under the state of the evidence on the motion to suppress that the test kit was not subject to suppression.
Defendant next argues that
We conclude that
In any event, the evidence was that the warrant was in fact served at 7:50 a.m., a time within the hours set forth in
Defendant’s third assignment is that a yellow piece of paper given defendant by the officer was not a copy of the inventory returned to the court.
Here the officer gave defendant the yellow receipt at the premises searched, but later typed the same information as an inventory to be filed with his return. This procedure met the requirements of
. The first assignment of error is not well-taken.
Assignment of Error No. 2: “The trial court committed prejudicial and reversible error when it permitted, over objection, questioning of witnesses about, testimony concerning, and the introduction into evidence of a Warrant to Arrest on Indictment or Information and the accompanying Indictment issued by the Crawford County Common Pleas Court on or about the 18th day of May, 1979, *7 when such indictment had ultimately been dismissed; there was no conviction upon said indictment; and the case in Crawford County was unrelated to the Indictment upon which the Defendant was upon trial for herein.”
Defendant called three witnesses to testify in his behalf as to his character.
After discussion out of the presence of the jury the state was permittеd to cross-examine the witnesses as to whether they were aware of the fact that an indictment had been returned against defеndant in Crawford County, Ohio, for engaging in organized crime, to wit: illegal trafficking in marijuana, although the indictment was later dismissed and defendant was nоt convicted of the offense.
Paragraph two of the syllabus of State v. Elliott (1971), 25 Ohio St. 2d 249 [54 O.O.2d 371], states:
“A character witness may be cross-examined as to the existence of reports of particular acts, vices, or associations of the person concerning whom he has testified which are inconsistent with the reputаtion attributed to him by the witness — not to establish the truth of the facts, but to test the credibility of the witness, and to ascertain what weight or value is to bе given his testimony. Such inconsistent testimony tends to show either that the witness is unfamiliar with the reputation concerning which he has testified, or that his standards of what constitutes good repute are unsound.” ■
We have carefully examined the transcript of proceedings at trial and find that witnesses Douglas, Wingate, and Seal testified only as to defendant’s reputation for truth and/or veracity.
We parenthetically note that witness Koziel was not cross-examined relative to the indictment, that the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony of witness Myers and that witness Wingate did not in fact testify as to defendant’s reputation. Although questioned as to defendant’s reputation for truthfulness, witness Wingate in answer еxpressed her own thoughts as to defendant being a “reliable, responsible, hard-working individual.”
The fact that defendant had been indicted for engaging in organized crime, to wit: illegal trafficking in marijuana, was not in any manner inconsistent with his reputation for truthfulness or veracity, but rather would go to his reputation generally as being of good character or a specific reputation as being a law-abiding citizеn, matters about which the witnesses had not been questioned.
We thus conclude that the trial court erred in permitting cross-examination оf the witnesses concerning the indictment returned in Crawford County and find the second assignment of error to be well-taken.
For the error prеjudicial to defendant set forth under the second assignment of error, we must reverse the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County, and remand this cause to that court for new trial.
Judgment reversed.
Cole, P.J., and Guernsey, J, concur.