Court Opinion

ID: 9884986
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:27:07.403213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:43.154513
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Schaefer, dissenting: The defendants’ conviction was based upon the presumption of guilt that flows from the possession of recently stolen property. I agree with the majority that the search of the trunk of the car was illegal under Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 11 L. ed. 2d 777, 84 S. Ct. 981, and that the judgment should be reversed because the products of that search were received in evidence. But I think that the cause should be remanded for a new trial. Officer Nicolini’s testimony as to the circumstances of the arrest was severely discredited by his own contradictory testimony at the preliminary hearing. To rebut the defense suggestion that his testimony at this trial was a recent fabrication, .the State offered in evidence a copy of his report to his commanding officer and a transcript of his testimony before the grand jury. Both exhibits were admitted in evidence, but neither is included in the record before this court. From the statements of counsel in the trial court during the argument as to their admissibility, it seems likely that both the report and the grand jury testimony antedated his testimony at this trial, and that both were consistent with that testimony. But the exhibits are not before us, and the majority therefore appraises Nicolini’s testimony without considering them. I would therefore remand the cause for a new trial, at which the evidence obtained from the illegal search of the trunk would not be admitted, and a complete record of the evidence relating to the validity of the arrest would be before the court. Mr. Justice Underwood concurs in this dissent.