Court Opinion

ID: 9740907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:44:37.17795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:21.019183
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Draper, J.
I concur in the result on the basis of Willennar v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 248, 91 N. E. 2d 178. Practically the same question was raised in that case and to my mind it is decisive of the only substantial question presented here. The appellant here argued that if he had been immediately taken before a magistrate as required by Burns’ 1942 Repl., §47-2307, some of the officers who saw him at the station and testified to his condition would not have seen him there and so would not have been able to so testify. Willennar v. State, supra, relying on Hicks v. State (1938) 213 Ind. 277, 11 N. E. 2d 171, 12 N. E. 2d 501, and the cases therein cited, holds that evidence is not inadmissible even though obtained while an accused is unlawfully detained, in the absence of coercion of some kind. There was no coercion here, and the evidence was admissible *574whether or not the appellant was being unlawfully detained when he was observed by the officers.
Note. — Reported in 112 N. E. 2d 575.