Sossamon v. State

Citations: 31 Ark. App. 131; 789 S.W.2d 738; 1990 Ark. App. LEXIS 350Docket: CA CR 89-98

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; May 30, 1990; Arkansas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

William Ray Sossamon was convicted of marijuana possession and sentenced to six years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The case arose from a search warrant obtained by Deputy Sheriff Allen Jordan on March 20, 1987, based on surveillance and a tip from a confidential informant who alleged recent marijuana activity at Sossamon's residence. Upon executing the warrant, officers discovered drug paraphernalia but no crystal; they later found marijuana in Sossamon's car upon his return. Sossamon's motion to suppress the evidence was denied.

Sossamon raised multiple arguments on appeal, including a claim that the admission of copies of the search warrant and affidavit violated the "best evidence" rule due to the disappearance of the originals. He argued that the authenticity of the copies was questionable, particularly noting discrepancies in the dates. The court found no genuine question regarding the copies' authenticity, as both the warrant and the affidavit were substantiated by Deputy Sheriff Jordan's testimony, and the evidence indicated they were executed on the same day. 

Additionally, Sossamon argued that the affidavit was insufficiently detailed regarding the premises to be searched, despite providing precise directions to his rural home. The affidavit described the location but did not adequately specify the house itself. The court ultimately upheld the trial court's decisions regarding the admission of evidence and the sufficiency of the affidavit.

Travel directions are provided to a brown house with a brown roof and small porch located 0.2 miles down a dirt road adjacent to Smileys Barbecue. In the legal case Nichols v. State, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld the validity of a search warrant, noting that the affidavit included detailed directions to the location being searched, countering claims of insufficient particularity. The appellant also contested the credibility of a confidential informant, who reported recent drug activity at the residence and had a history of providing reliable information leading to arrests. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.1(b) requires that affidavits based on hearsay must disclose facts establishing the informant's reliability.

The court referenced Illinois v. Gates, which replaced the earlier two-pronged test for assessing informant credibility with a more flexible standard based on the totality of circumstances. The warrant's validity hinges on whether there is probable cause to believe contraband will be found at the location described. The amended Rule 13.1(b) states that affidavits can be sufficient if they collectively demonstrate reasonable cause, even if individual informant credibility is not established.

The affidavit was deemed adequate to show probable cause for the search. Additionally, the appellant challenged the justification for a nighttime search; however, the affidavit noted the risk of drug sales or movement if not executed at night. Arkansas Rule 13.2(c) generally mandates that search warrants be executed during daytime hours, but allows for exceptions if reasonable cause is established.

Objects to be seized were deemed at risk of imminent removal, justifying a nighttime search warrant which the issuing judicial officer authorized for execution at any time. The supporting affidavit indicated that sheriff's deputies had observed known drug users entering and exiting a residence quickly, a confidential informant had previously seen contraband inside, and the deputy believed there was a threat of drug sales or movement. This evidence sufficed for the nighttime search as per precedent cases. 

The appellant contended that the judicial officer did not maintain a written summary of proceedings; however, since the affidavit accompanied the warrant, no harm was done. The appellant also argued that the return of the warrant was not signed until after the suppression hearing, but the warrant was executed immediately, rendering this an insignificant procedural issue. According to Ark. R. Crim. P. Rule 16.2(e), a motion to suppress evidence must be granted only if a substantial violation occurred or if required by constitutional standards. Both state and federal constitutions mandate reasonable searches and warrant affidavits to be interpreted practically. Courts generally do not favor technical challenges to warrants to encourage lawful warrant procurement. Given that officers acted in good faith, the warrant's validity was upheld.

The trial court's decision to deny the motion to suppress was affirmed. Additionally, the appellant challenged the trial court's decision to submit a verdict form that enhanced the punishment for simple possession (second offense) to that of a Class D felony, despite being charged with a Class C felony. He argued this enhancement was erroneous because no motion was made to amend the charge per Ark. Code Ann. 16-85-407 and that submitting the enhanced penalty without notice constituted prejudicial error.

The enhancement of the appellant's charge from a misdemeanor to a Class D felony altered the offense's nature. The appellant argued that his prior conviction in Oklahoma should not count as a prior offense under Arkansas law for enhancement purposes. Citing McIlwain v. State, the appellant contended that since he was not previously convicted under Arkansas law, he should be treated as a first offender. The court acknowledged that the jury had been instructed on both possession with intent to deliver and the lesser offense of possession as a second offense. However, it found merit in the appellant's argument regarding the jury's punishment instructions. 

Arkansas law stipulates that a first offense for possession of marijuana is a Class A misdemeanor, while a second offense is a Class D felony. Since the appellant's first offense occurred in Oklahoma, it did not qualify under Arkansas statutes for enhancement. The appellee's reliance on Ark. Code Ann. 5-64-408(b) was rejected, as that provision does not apply to offenses under 5-64-401(c). Consequently, the court concluded that the appellant's sentence should be reduced to one year for the Class A misdemeanor, to be served in a county jail or designated institution. The decision was affirmed as modified, with agreement from the Chief Justice and another judge.