Unpublished
Unpublished
No. 06-5193
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
(3:06-cr-00016-MBS)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Robert Joyner was convicted of
possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine
base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)
(West 1999 & Supp. 2007).
Joyners conviction.
Shortly
after
midnight
on
July
24,
2005,
Joyner
Joyner
stopped briefly and then sped off, leading officers on a high speed
vehicle chase, which ended after Joyner crashed his vehicle into a
tree.
quantity of crack cocaine was discovered under the hood of the car.
After the officer advised Joyner of his rights, Joyner repeatedly
called the officer back to the vehicle and tried to convince the
- 2 -
crack was his, he replied, I dont know nothing about that man, I
talk to an attorney.
drugs belonged and stated that if Joyner did not claim them,
everyone in the vehicle would be arrested.
Ultimately, Joyner
statements,
finding
that
the
officers
questioning
was
The
Ornelas v.
United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996); United States v. Rusher,
966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992).
- 3 -
motion.
1998).
Joyner contends that the district court erred in denying
his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of the
vehicle in which Joyner was driving. The district court determined
that the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle.
Probable cause to search exists where there is a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in
a particular place.
- 4 -
Therefore,
See
Joyner
mentioned
an
attorney
in
the
following
manner:
if the crack found under the hood was his, Joyner denied knowledge
of it.
He
go.
After a time, Joyner called the officer back to the
vehicle.
Joyner
find
no
clear
error
in
the
district
courts
see also Seidman, 156 F.3d at 547 (viewing evidence in the light
most favorable to the government).
- 6 -
for
any
statements
that
Joyner
made
before
he
Cir.
1992)
incriminating
(holding
statements
interrogation).
that
Miranda
are
not
does
made
not
in
apply
when
response
to
On two
In
The
judge
and
will
be
disturbed
- 7 -
only
under
extraordinary
circumstances.
Cir. 1997).
In determining whether a mistrial is warranted based on
improper questioning or testimony, the court considers whether the
testimony was improper, and whether it was so prejudicial that the
defendant was denied a fair trial.
F.2d 597, 608 (4th Cir. 1993).
officers testimony was not improper, but merely stated his opinion
of the meaning of Joyners words requesting that the girls be
released.
The court read back the testimonyI felt that he took- that he stated
officer did not testify that Joyner said that the crack cocaine was
his or otherwise confess to the possession.
We
to
Joyner
from
Joyners
requests
that
the
girls
be
- 8 -
Joyner
However, as stated
conclusion,
we
affirm
Joyners
conviction.
We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED