Kathi Ann Rogers was convicted of possessing less than one gram of methamphetamine, with the trial court sentencing her to four years of confinement following her plea of true to an enhancement paragraph. On appeal, she raised four issues. The first two issues allege that the prosecutor improperly sought to commit jurors to a specific verdict based on hypothetical facts. The appellate court recognized that while attorneys cannot bind jurors to a verdict prior to hearing evidence, the prosecutor's question to a juror did not constitute an improper commitment question. The question was deemed appropriate as it could lead to a valid challenge for cause and did not introduce extraneous evidentiary facts.
In relation to the third and fourth issues, Rogers contended that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence due to an impermissible detention. The appellate court noted that the determination of whether a voir dire question was improper involves assessing if it attempted to create bias before the jurors had heard the evidence. The court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming the conviction.
The State was permitted to question prospective jurors regarding their understanding of possession laws, particularly concerning residual amounts of drugs. Appellant's first issue was overruled. During voir dire, a discussion occurred about various forms of possession, which led to an objection from the appellant based on Standefer. This objection was deemed untimely, and therefore, the appellant preserved no grounds for review, resulting in the overruling of the second issue.
In addressing the third and fourth issues, the appellant argued that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence due to an alleged impermissible detention beyond the initial purpose of the stop. Citing the Fourth Amendment and the state constitution, the appellant contended that the trial court’s findings were flawed. However, the court noted that the trial court serves as the sole factfinder and that its findings, if supported by evidence, cannot be disturbed unless an abuse of discretion is demonstrated.
The record indicated that the appellant was stopped by Officer Byrd for running two stop signs. Although the appellant claimed her daughter was having an asthma attack, Officer Byrd found no signs of distress. After approximately fifteen minutes, the appellant consented to a search of her vehicle, during which illegal items were discovered. The court concluded that the appellant's detention was not unnecessarily prolonged, and her consent to the search was not contested. Thus, the third and fourth issues were also overruled, affirming the trial court's judgment.
