United States v. Mark Brock Palmer

Appellant Mark Brock Palmer appeals his conviction for manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 *492 U.S.C. § 841 (a). Palmer argues that the district court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress, (2) admitting his post-arraignment statement and (3) denying his motion to dismiss. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

I.

On the afternoon of February 11, 1991, a Spokane County Sheriff Deputy arrested Jack Roberts after the deputy smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from Roberts’ vehicle during a traffic stop. The deputy obtained a warrant for the search of the car and obtained several bags of marijuana therefrom.

Deputy Cal Walker, who had information regarding Roberts’ growing marijuana at various locations in Spokane County, met with Roberts shortly after his arrest. Roberts gave a statement to Walker and directed him to the site of a marijuana grow at a residence on West Long Lake Road near Ford, Washington, where Palmer lived with his two children. Roberts stated that he and Palmer were conducting a marijuana grow operation in the residence.

Walker’s supervisor, Lieutenant Michael Myhre, informed Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)…

concurring in part, dissenting in part.

I concur in the majority’s disposition of the motion to suppress, due process and equal protection issues; however, I disagree with its resolution of the post-arraignment statement and would affirm Palmer’s conviction.

The majority relies on Palmerin v. City of Riverside, 794 F.2d 1409 (9th Cir.1986), to conclude that a contemporaneous objection need not have been made. Consequently, it concludes that the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion and that the district court abused its discretion in admitting Palmer’s statement.

The majority misreads Palmerin by omitting a crucial part of our holding in that case. We held that “where the substance of the objection has been thoroughly explored during a hearing on the motion in limine, and the trial court’s ruling permitting introduction of evidence, was explicit and definitive, no further action is required to preserve for appeal the issue of admissibility of that evidence.” Palmerin, 794 F.2d at 1413 (first emphasis in original, second emphasis added).

In Palmerin , defendants sought unsuccessfully to exclude admission of evidence of their guilty pleas by a motion in limine. Id. at…

990 F.2d 490 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Brock PALMER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 91-30291. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 4, 1992. Decided April 5, 1993. Peter S. Schweda, Waldo & Schweda, Spokane, WA, for defendant-appellant. Pamela J. Byerly and Earl A. Hicks, Asst. U.S. Attys., Spokane, WA, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Before: WRIGHT, HUG and POOLE, Circuit Judges. POOLE, Circuit Judge: 1 Appellant Mark Brock Palmer appeals his conviction for manufacturing 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (a). Palmer argues that the district court erred in (1) denying his motion to suppress, (2) admitting his post-arraignment statement and (3) denying his motion to dismiss. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. I. 2 On the afternoon of February 11, 1991, a Spokane County Sheriff Deputy arrested Jack Roberts after the deputy smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from Roberts' vehicle during a traffic stop. The deputy obtained a warrant for the search of the car and obtained several bags of marijuana…