Case Name: STATE, Respondent v. BATTESE, Appellant
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1971-05-21
Citations: 85 S.D. 581
Docket Number: File No. 10906
Parties: STATE, Respondent v. BATTESE, Appellant
Judges: All the Judges concur.
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 85
Pages: 581–582

Head Matter:
STATE, Respondent v. BATTESE, Appellant
(186 N.W.2d 883)
(File No. 10906.
Opinion filed May 21, 1971)
Martin P. Farrell, Hot Springs, for defendant and appellant.
Gordon Mydland, Atty. Gen., Walter W. Andre, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, Roland E. Grosshans, State’s Atty., Hot Springs, for plaintiff and respondent.

Opinion:
HANSON, Judge.
Defendant was arrested and charged with the illegal possession of narcotic drugs. Following a preliminary hearing in the Fall River County Court 'he was bound over to cir cuit court for trial. In this habeas corpus proceeding defendant challenges the admissibility of certain evidence and the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to hold him for trial.
We find no merit in defendant's contentions. The challenged exhibits were properly admitted by the committing magistrate and there was sufficient, credible, and competent evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to show there was probable cause the offenses charged had been committed and that defendant committed the same. The writ of habeas corpus was therefore properly quashed.
Affirmed.
All the Judges concur.