Opinion ID: 2247746
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: Defendant claims that the probable cause affidavit was a conclusory affidavit and did not allow a neutral and detached magistrate to make an independent determination of probable cause. An affidavit which merely states the conclusions of the affiant is insufficient to establish probable cause. Kinnaird v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 506, 515, 242 N.E.2d 500, 505. In the case at bar, however, the essential facts needed to establish probable cause had been within the personal knowledge of the victim, Marian Jackson. She had stated in her affidavit (paragraph 2) that Defendant threatened [her] with a butcher knife and forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse and fellatio with [her]. R. at 16. These statements by Jackson were not conclusions, as characterized by the Defendant; rather they were statements of facts from which probable cause could be determined. Assuming, arguendo, that the affidavit had not been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause, there was, nevertheless, no reversible error. The legality of the arrest is of consequence, at this stage of the proceedings, only if it is determined that evidence was obtained in consequence thereof and admitted at the trial. Williams v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 385, 386, 304 N.E.2d 311, 313. There has been no error assigned with respect to any such evidence. We find no reversible error. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, HUNTER and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.