State v. Champagne
This text of 819 So. 2d 294 (State v. Champagne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE of Louisiana
v.
Darrin CHAMPAGNE.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
PER CURIAM.
Granted. The trial court incorrectly granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence, specifically $2,054.00 in cash found on the defendant at the time of his arrest and scales and baggies found during a search of his residence. This evidence formed an integral part of the charged transaction, possession of 28 grams or more, but less than 200 grams of cocaine. R.S. 40:967(D); State v. Colomb, 98-2813, p. 3 (La.10/1/99), 747 So.2d 1074. The evidence is independently relevant to establish the defendant's dominion and control over the cocaine retrieved by the police from the residence at 2720 Robert Street after they arrested the defendant. State v. Trahan, 425 So.2d 1222 (La.1983). The evidence is also relevant to prove that the defendant knowingly possessed the cocaine, as charged by the state in the bill of information. State v. Goiner, 410 So.2d 1085, 1086 (La.1982); State v. Powell, 01-0638 (La.App. 4th Cir.12/12/01), 804 So.2d 802. The order of the court of appeal is reversed, the judgment of the district court granting the defendant's motion to suppress evidence is also reversed, and this case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
819 So. 2d 294, 2002 WL 1250480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-champagne-la-2002.