Carter v. State

The trial court did not err in refusing to admit a properly authenticated motion to suppress, which contained a statement that the defendant did not reside with his girlfriend in a home containing a methamphetamine lab when officers arrested him.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Paul D. Carter was convicted by a jury of criminal attempt to manufacture methamphetamine, conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine and obstructing an officer.1 He appeals following the denial of his motion for new trial. In his sole enumeration of error, Carter contends the trial court erred by refusing to admit certain evidence at trial. As to this issue, the record and transcript show the following: On May 8, 2003, two Paulding County sheriff’s deputies attempted to serve a probation violation warrant on Carter. The deputies had received notification from Carter’s probation officer that Carter could be found at the home of Michelle Alonso. When the deputies arrived at the home, the door was open; they repeatedly announced themselves but did not get a response from anyone inside the house. The deputies stepped into the house and again announced their presence, again with no response. The deputies then proceeded inside the house where they found a juvenile female. The deputies conducted a search of the house to see if Carter was there. During the search, the deputies discovered an apparent methamphetamine lab inside the home.

Carter, Alonso and another individual, subsequently identified as Ricky Wade, arrived at the house a short time later and fled in their vehicle upon sight of the deputies’ patrol car. The deputies gave chase, but Carter and Wade abandoned the vehicle at the end of a cul-de-sac and fled into some nearby woods. Alonso stayed with the vehicle and was apprehended at the scene. Carter and Wade were arrested a short time later when they emerged from the woods and hitchhiked a ride from two narcotics agents in an undercover police vehicle.2

Carter v. State

The trial court did not err in refusing to admit a properly authenticated motion to suppress, which contained a statement that the defendant did not reside with his girlfriend in a home containing a methamphetamine lab when officers arrested him.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report