Court Opinion

ID: 9866205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 00:52:37.384916+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:13:42.844147
License: Public Domain

Henderson, J.,
filed the following opinion, in which Collins, J., concurred:
I do not agree with the conclusion of the court that the admissibility of the evidence obtained under the allegedly illegal search warrant is properly before us. The opinion recognizes the long established and salutary rule that *78unless there is a timely objection to the introduction of evidence, the point cannot be reviewed on appeal. Rule 9, Rules of the Court of Appeals. Even an erroneous ruling upon evidence from one source may be waived by the introduction of identical evidence from another source without objection. Barber v. State, 191 Md. 555, 62 A. 2d 616, and cases cited.
The opinion seems to concede that neither the fact that the court refused to quash the search warrant before the trial, nor the fact that an objection was made to a preliminary question as to the result of the search, put to an officer who did not make the search, would be sufficient, standing alone, to cure the failure to renew the objection to questions put to the searching officer or the introduction of the paraphernalia in evidence. It is difficult to see how the combination of these two circumstances could supply the deficiency. It has been held that a general objection, after a motion of quash, will suffice. Miller v. State, 174 Md. 362, 366, 198 A. 710. But here there was no objection to the evidence, when offered, and no general objection to the line of inquiry. Cf. Sykes v. State, 154, Md. 694, 139 A. 825; Davis v. State, 189 Md. 269, 55 A. 2d 702. If the preliminary rulings were sufficiently preserved, it seems inescapable that they were not prejudicial. Under these circumstances, it is unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the warrant under which the evidence was obtained.