State v. Parnell

If the trial court does not make specific findings on all material facts, and there is evidence from which such facts could be decided in more than one way, the Court will presume that the facts were decided in a manner consistent with the trial court’s ultimate findings.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained by police during the entry into and search of Defendant’s home because he gave consent after the detectives had already trespassed, which renders his consent invalid. The Court found that the trial court ruled only on his argument regarding his consent to enter his home after the police had been invited inside and observed the marijuana in plain view. The trial court did not rule on the timing of the trespass relative to the consent to search the rest of the Defendant’s home. Since the trial court did not consider when the trespass occurred relative to Defendant’s decision to provide consent, the Court does not have any record regarding whether the trespass preceded Defendant’s consent to search his home, and if so, what bearing the trespass had on the later consent, which resulted in more incriminating evidence. The Court remanded to the trial court to establish whether the police trespass occurred prior to Defendant’s consent to search his home. Vacated and remanded.