![]() Rice responded that he did not believe there Rice rolled down his window and Taylor informed him he believed there was an Vehicle, got out and knocked on the passenger-side window of Rice's vehicle. There was an outstanding warrant for him. Taylor knew Rice and at the time believed Police Department saw the Appellant, Clarence Rice, leave the Elsmere MinitMart and get into the passenger side of his 1989 red Cadillac, which at the time, On January 25, 2004, Officer Michael Taylor (Taylor) of the Elsmere Prejudicial effect of such testimony vastly outweighed its probative value.Īfter reviewing the record, we affirm Appellant's convictions. Regarding a loaded pistol clip found in his glove compartment because the To define reasonable doubt during voir dire, (4) by refusing to instruct the jury onįacilitation, (5) by overruling his motion for directed verdict on the count of firstdegree trafficking on insufficiency of the evidence, and (6) in admitting testimony (2) in allowing Sergeant Stevens to testify as an expert, despite theĬommonwealth's failure to give adequate notice, (3) by allowing the prosecution ![]() Suppress evidence seized in a warrantless search of his automobile post-arrest, The Appellant alleges that the trial court erred (1) in denying his motion to He was sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and appeals to thisĬourt as a matter of right. The Appellant, Clarence Rice, was convicted of first-degree trafficking in aĬontrolled substance (second offense) and persistent felony offender, firstdegree. SUPREME COURT, CR 76.28 (4) (c), THIS OPINION
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |