Court Opinion

ID: 9523528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:43:36.832858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:21.390125
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Draper, J.
In its petition for rehearing, apparently prepared by the prosecuting attorney of the 69th Judicial Circuit, the State complains that we held, in effect, that articles seized in an unlawful search “becomes sacred and inaccessible.” We did not mean to so hold.
The cases below noted are now cited to sustain the State’s assertion that where knowledge of the defend-, ant’s possession of articles used or useful in violating the law is gained or had by witnesses independently, of the violation of the defendant’s constitutional rights,the testimony of such witnesses may be heard. Walker v. State (1928), 200 Ind. 303, 163 N. E. 229; Flum v. State (1923), 193 Ind. 585, 141 N. E. 353; Shorter v. State (1929), 89 Ind. App. 288, 166 N. E. 287. It is now asserted that if other witnesses could testify that the stolen articles were in appellant’s home prior to the search, or if the defendant took the stand and admitted possession of the articles, they would be admissible in evidence, and the mere bringing of the articles into court is not of itself reversible error.
These assertions may rest on solid ground. It may also be that the articles in question could properly be produced in court and identified by the owner as the articles which were stolen from him in connection with proof that they were stolen. But those questions were *247not presented, and we did not and do not mean to intimate the. answer to any of them.
■ It-was not asserted, nor does the record show, that the articles were produced so that any other witness could identify them as articles seen by him in appellant’s home before it was searched. It was not claimed, nor does the record show, that they were produced for the purpose of establishing them merely as the articles which had been stolen. There was no claim that the State was forewarned or had any reason to believe that the appellant would testify, and they wished to cross-examine him concerning them, and in fact the appellant did not testify.
We did not hold that because the appellant’s premises were unlawfully searched and the articles were illegally seized they could under no circumstances and for no purpose be exhibited to the jury or introduced, in evidence. As the case came to us it presented a course of conduct on the part of the prosecuting officials which was- patently designed to acquaint the jury,' by indirection, with the fact that these articles were found in the appellant’s possession, in clear defiance of the appellant’s constitutional rights, the decision of this court holding- the articles to have been unlawfully seized, and the order of the trial court directing that the. evidence be suppressed.
Neither in the briefs nor in argument were the present assertions made. • The State’s original brief admits that “the State was guilty of some indiscretion by virtue of bringing into court some of the evidence which had been previously ordered suppressed.”. It further admits that “such practices, although not strictly proper, may be attributed to the zeal of the Prosecutor in seeking a conviction.” The effect of such conduct was sought to be avoided only by the fact that the court admonished the jury “to disregard the display *248of these articles in making up their verdict,” and in that connection our attention is directed' to the fact that these “instances of admonition, totaling nine in all, may be found in the record.”
Rehearing denied.
Emmert, J., not participating.
Note.—Reported in 102 N. E. 2d 763.