Opinion ID: 1931018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The admissibility of the coins taken from the person of Cress

Text: Cress raises no constitutional issue regarding the search of his person which produced coins to the value of $18.21, [4] but rather questions their admissibility in evidence on the theory that they were not identified or positively associated with the break at the V.F.W. building. A similar contention was rejected in State v. Small, supra, and in State v. Mimmovich, supra. In Mimmovich, this Court said: The coins found on [the defendants] were reasonably relevant to the charges of breaking, entering, and larceny in the nighttime and properly admissible as evidence against them . . . . 284 A.2d at 286. The fact that the defendants were seen in the vicinity of the breaking and entering (Cress dropping the paper bag later found to contain a muscular dystrophy container similar to one missing from the V.F.W. building), and the fact that a large quantity of coinage was taken in the burglary, coupled with the possession by Cress on the search of his person of a significantly large number of coins, give rise to a permissible circumstantial inference that the seized money was part of the loot taken from the premises where the breaking and entering had occurred. These coins were relevant evidence as to the identity of the burglars.