Edmund Steven Hardman v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 2000 )

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Elder, Bray and Bumgardner
Argued at Richmond, Virginia
EDMUND STEVEN HARDMAN
MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY
v. Record No. 1878-99-3 JUDGE RUDOLPH BUMGARDNER, III
MAY 16, 2000
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF LYNCHBURG
Mosby G. Perrow, III, Judge
David E. Wright, Assistant Public Defender,
for appellant.
H. Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney
General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on
brief), for appellee.
After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Edmund
Steven Hardman of possession with intent to distribute cocaine,
possession with intent to distribute marijuana, and possession
of a firearm while possessing a controlled substance in
violation of Code §§ 18.2-248, -248.1, and -308.4. The
defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting statements
he made to a police officer who had not informed him of his
rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Assuming
the trial court erred, we find the error harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt.
* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code
§ 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication.
The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the
Commonwealth established that Officer H.W. Duff went to the
defendant's apartment at 12:38 a.m. to investigate a traffic
accident. Two plainclothes officers accompanied Duff. The
defendant answered the door and let the officers enter when they
acknowledged that they were inquiring "about the car." The
defendant's girlfriend, Christy Stevens, and one other person
were present when the officers entered.
Upon entering the living room, Duff noticed a partially
smoked marijuana blunt. The defendant admitted he had smoked it
earlier that day, but when Duff asked to search the apartment,
the defendant refused to give consent. Duff went to get a
search warrant, leaving the other officers at the apartment.
They asked the occupants to remain in the living room because
they were under investigation. The officers did not draw
weapons or handcuff the occupants. When Duff returned around
2:45 a.m. with the search warrant, three or four uniformed
officers had already arrived to assist.
As the officers began the search, the defendant said he
needed to use the bathroom. Duff insisted on accompanying him
and remained within four feet of the defendant. While still in
the bathroom, Duff asked the defendant if he had anything in the
apartment he wanted to tell the officer about. The defendant
replied, "[H]e had a .380 caliber semi-automatic pistol in the
bedroom for his protection." Duff asked the defendant if he had
- 2 -
any marijuana or cocaine, and the defendant replied that he had
about a half ounce of marijuana in the bedroom. The defendant
admitted that he sold marijuana but denied selling cocaine.
Assuming the trial court erred, we consider whether the
error was harmless. In order for an error to be harmless, "'the
court must be able to declare a belief that the error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Dearing v. Commonwealth,
259 Va. 117, 123, 524 S.E.2d 121, 124 (2000) (quoting Chapman v.
California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967)). "'[A]n otherwise valid
conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court can
confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional
error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Id. at 123, 524
S.E.2d at 125 (citations omitted). In determining whether the
error was harmless, the court must consider several factors,
including "the importance of the tainted evidence in the
prosecution's case, whether the evidence was cumulative, the
presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting
the tainted evidence on material points, and, of course, the
overall strength of the prosecution's case." Lilly v.
Commonwealth, 258 Va. 548, 551, 523 S.E.2d 208, 209 (1999)
(citations omitted).
Applying these principles, we find the error in admitting
the defendant's statements was harmless beyond a reasonable
doubt. The defendant consented to the officers entering his
apartment and admitted he smoked marijuana earlier that day.
- 3 -
Duff obtained a warrant to search the apartment for contraband.
When Duff questioned the defendant, officers were lawfully
executing the warrant. The defendant's statements pointed to
evidence the officers would discover during the search and added
little to a very strong case.
The apartment contained two bedrooms, but only one was
used. In that bedroom, the officers found statements from a
joint bank account that the defendant shared with Stevens.
Under the bed, they recovered a .38 caliber semi-automatic
handgun, and on the closet floor, they found the bullets. The
officers also found marijuana under the mattress. The officers
pried open two safes found in the bedroom when the defendant
refused to furnish keys. One safe contained marijuana and $522.
Two wooden boxes contained bags of cocaine and $874. In the
kitchen, the officers found digital scales, razor blades and
knives with cocaine residue, and plastic bags. In the living
room, they found a police scanner. The defendant had $590 in
his sock. In total, the officers recovered 70 grams of
marijuana, 28.4 grams of cocaine, and $1,986 cash.
Christy Stevens testified that she lived in the apartment
with the defendant but neither the drugs nor the scales belonged
to her. The gun did not belong to her though she had seen it
before. She did not have a key to the defendant's safe nor was
she aware of its contents. Stevens stated that the defendant
used the wooden boxes, but she had never looked into them.
- 4 -
The police properly acquired all the physical evidence by
execution of a valid search warrant and independently of any
tainted evidence. Along with Christy Stevens' testimony, it
conclusively established the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. Indeed, the trial court found that the
evidence without the defendant's statements still proved the
offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court stated:
I think the circumstantial evidence is
overwhelming. Even without [the defendant's]
statement to Officer Duff, [the defendant] is
tied to that bedroom through the papers found
there. The quantity of cocaine is in excess
of $3,000 of street value. And not just the
quantity of cocaine and marijuana alone,
you’ve got the scales and all of the other
paraphernalia or accoutrements of the drug
trade in the house, and I think the evidence
is overwhelming.
Any error in admitting the defendant's statements was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we affirm the
convictions.
Affirmed.
- 5 -