English v. State

The defendant's statements to the arresting officer were not responses to custodial interrogation within the meaning of Miranda because they were made during administrative processing and the officer was not seeking an incriminating response.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Antonio Ellis English appeals his convictions for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of public housing, abandonment of a controlled substance, and obstruction of an officer. He contends the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to refer to the war on drugs in her opening statement, allowing in evidence a statement he gave without proper Miranda warnings, limiting his testimony about his companion’s criminal history, and by denying his motion for a new trial based on the ineffectiveness of his trial defense counsel. For the reasons stated below, we affirm. Considered in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, the evidence shows that English and a man named Rucker were walking down a street when the Multi-Agency Narcotics squad passed in their van. Believing that English and Rucker had recognized them, the agents watched them and saw English walk over on the grass and appear to drop something. After the van stopped, an agent ran to the spot, and retrieved what turned out to be 2.4 grams of crack cocaine. While this was going on, English continued to walk away. When the agents identified themselves as police officers, he attempted to run away, but he was apprehended in a nearby public housing complex. Over $500 in cash was found on his person. An agent, who was qualified as an expert, testified that the amount of cocaine that English discarded was more than that which would be used for personal consumption.

After he was found guilty and sentenced, English filed a motion for new trial and amended motions that asserted, among other grounds, that his defense counsel was ineffective. When these motions were denied, English filed this appeal.

English v. State

The defendant's statements to the arresting officer were not responses to custodial interrogation within the meaning of Miranda because they were made during administrative processing and the officer was not seeking an incriminating response.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report