Court Opinion

ID: 9786232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 23:51:31.245833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:43.111580
License: Public Domain

HILL, Justice,
specially concurring.
[132] I write separately because I do not agree that we should affirm this case because the affidavit is not in the record. Rather, I would affirm on the merits because the affidavit in support of the search warrant is adequate.
[183] W.R.Cr.P. 41(f) provides: "(F Filing of papers with clerk. The judicial officer who has issued a search warrant shall attach to the warrant the copy of the return, inventory and all of the papers in connection therewith and shall file them with the clerk of the district or cireuit court in the county in which the property was seized."
[1384] For this reason, I would not de- ' cline to treat Roeschlein's issue on its merits. The papers should be in the record, and it 'was not Roeschlein's responsibility to get them there. Taking that one step further, it was certainly the responsibility of both trial counsel and appellate counsel to see to it that the record was complete in this regard. It is most difficult to discern an adequate excuse for such an oversight. In the fulfillment of our responsibility, I would direct the clerk of the district court to forward the missing papers to this Court and have them added to the record on appeal. Upon receipt of those papers, I would assess the issue on its merits and affirm the judgment and sentence.