Lowe v. State

Testimony by a sheriff's investigator familiar with jail procedures and a witness identifying defendant as the caller was sufficient foundation for the admission of recorded phone calls from jail.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Charles Edward Lowe, Jr. was convicted by a jury of trafficking in cocaine. He appeals following the denial of his motion for new trial, contending that the trial court erred by admitting certain evidence at trial and that his trial counsel was ineffective. On November 9, 2006, officers with the Carroll County Crime Suppression Unit went to 2197 Shady Grove Road in Carroll County to execute a search warrant. The officers knocked on the door and entered the residence after Lowe opened the door; they then immediately proceeded to conduct a pat-down search of Lowe for officer safety and during that search, $1500 in United States currency in various denominations was discovered. Reshad Bailey, who was also in the residence and had an outstanding warrant against him, was placed under arrest. The search of the premises continued, and officers discovered what was subsequently identified as a large quantity of cocaine which appeared to be packaged for distribution, located in a brown paper bag in the kitchen area. In addition to the suspected cocaine, and $1500 found on Lowe’s person, officers also found a police scanner, a handgun, and documents with Lowe’s name on them in the residence.

Both Bailey and Lowe were transported to and booked in the Carroll County jail. While at the jail, Lowe made numerous telephone calls and his conversations were recorded. On appeal, Lowe contends that the trial court erred by allowing some of these recordings to be played at trial, and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain testimony and for failing to file a motion to suppress of the money seized from his person. Having reviewed these contentions, we find that Lowe is not entitled to a new trial for any of the reasons asserted, and affirm his conviction accordingly.

Lowe v. State

Testimony by a sheriff's investigator familiar with jail procedures and a witness identifying defendant as the caller was sufficient foundation for the admission of recorded phone calls from jail.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report