Opinion ID: 1708859
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: did the state's introduction of a shotgun and shotgun case, both of which were seized pursuant to a search warrant issued without probable cause, violate the appellant's rights under article 3, section 23 of the mississippi constitution?

Text: Of course, this error was one of the reasons for reversing Jimbo's conviction for the murder of Mrs. McWilliams. The issue in this case is whether the appellant waived his right to assert this error on appeal. The following proceedings were had outside the presence of the jury: BY THE COURT: Do you want to question the validity of the search warrant? BY MR. KELLY: Yes sir, I would like to. I would like to see it. BY MR. PETERS: We want him to first your Honor tell us how he is gonna tie these items in that have been marked for identification and particularly the gun case without it being brought in that it was recovered from his apartment. If he brings it out, he has waived his right to the search warrant for the first part because he said he is gonna put it in evidence, he's gonna tie it in and he has given the court the assurance of that and he waives any problem with the search warrant. ... . BY MR. KELLY: I'm trying to think of any other way that I can tie it in if I question the search, your honor... . I'm gonna have to make a decision. Could I have just a minute? BY THE COURT: Yes sir. BY MR. KELLY: We will withdraw our objection if that's all they intend to show was found in the apartment. The appellant, in his brief, concedes that he did not object at trial to the search and seizure of the shotgun. However, his rationale is that, since the case was being tried before the same judge as heard the previous case, there was no point in making the objection, since the ruling would not change. The appellant attempts to characterize his withdrawal of objection over the shotguns as the same situation which existed in Jones v. State, 461 So.2d 686 (Miss. 1984). In that case, a confession was erroneously admitted and the defendant testified to the same facts. This Court held that that testimony did not waive his rights as to the confession. When the trial judge makes a ruling adverse to a litigant, and where the litigant's lawyer has properly noted his objection, that litigant and his lawyer are entitled to try the rest of the case on the assumption that the trial judge's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. And, when that litigant reaches this Court we will not imply a waiver from the subsequent conduct which does nothing more than show the lawyer's obligatory respect for the trial judge while at the same time continuing as best can be done the advancement of his client's cause. Stong v. Freeman Truck Line, Inc., 456 So.2d 698, 711 (Miss. 1984), cited in Jones v. State, 461 So.2d at 702. If the guns had been previously introduced into evidence, over the defendant's objection, in this trial, and the defendant simply used them in his own testimony, this assignment of error would have more strength. However, here the defendant was doing more than making the best of a bad situation. He had affirmatively presented the evidence to advance his own case. The appellant here in effect, ... waived the ground of objection here assigned and chose to experiment with the evidence to see if it would help or hurt him. Stringer v. State, 279 So.2d 156, 159 (Miss. 1973). He did effectively waive any right to assert this error on appeal.