Court Opinion

ID: 9712290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:50:50.428918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:11.337087
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Staton, P.J.
I have concurred in result, since my rationale would differ in several ways from the majority opinion. First, the record from the Whitley Circuit Court is admissible on statutory grounds. The statute, IC 1971, 34-1-17-7 (Burns *192Code Ed.), refers tovfche admissibility of “. . . complete copies of the records. . .This-statutory phrase should be interpreted to mean complete for the evidentiary purpose for which the record is offered. The evidentiary purpose in Kessler’s case was to'prove a single element of the offense — that Kessler had previously been convicted of a felony. For this evidentiary purpose, the record offered in evidence was adequate and complete. The term “complete” as used in this statute should not be interpreted to mean the entire record when the entire record does not serve the evidentiary purpose.
Secondly, the tools found in Kessler’s possession cannot be established as burglar tools by a police officer’s characterization of them. Obviously, the tools found in Kessler’s possession have many other proper uses. The evidence which establishes these tools as burglar tools is Daniel Phillipson’s testimony coupled with other circumstantial evidence which ocurred prior to Kessler’s arrest.
Nóte. — Reported at 355 N.E.2d 262.