Gore was convicted of drug charges. He challenged the search warrant in his case, the admission of photographs and the failure to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. The panel rejected his arguments and affirmed. It held the search warrant was proper. Although the officer failed to mention the time and place of the transactions, he corrected any error here by supplementing the warrant application with oral testimony. The warrant was also supported by probable cause as the home had been the scene of a drug sale and the evidence connected Gore to the house and to drug sales. The panel held the admission of the photographs was error as the large amount of cash depicted in them was prejudicial. However, the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. Finally, the panel held that the evidence did not support the lesser included offense instruction as the overwhelming evidence placed Gore in the room where the drugs were discovered and the amount recovered supported only an inference of distribution not mere possession.
Simcox-Adams appealed the child custody and property division orders in her divorce action. The panel affirmed. It held the family court relied on the whole of the evidence presented and did not simply adopt the guardian ad litem report. The panel also held the inclusion of Simcox-Adams’ inheritance in martial property was correct as her testimony was found not credible and the inheritance was used during the marriage for household expenses. The panel also noted that equity demanded inclusion as Adams’ inheritance went toward the parties’ mortgage.