Court Opinion

ID: 9722186
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:19:40.391149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:31.439867
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Givan, J.
I dissent from the majority opinion in this case. The evidence as recited in the majority opinion indicates two versions of the Appellant Mitchell’s participation in the alleged robbery. One version, the testimony of co-Defendant McKenzie, placed the appellant in the filling station as the perpetrator of the robbery. The other version was the testimony of the Appellant Mitchell, who stated that it was McKenzie who had committed the robbery and fired the fatal shots. I agree with the majority that the pistol is not admissible in evidence by reason of the failure of police to obtain a search warrant. However, I would follow the authorities cited by the majority in finding that the admission of the pistol into evidence, although erroneous, was merely cumulative and was not decisive as to the guilt of the appellant.
Completely disregarding the pistol and the location where it was found, I would hold there is sufficient evidence in this case to support the verdict of the jury.
Note.—Reported in 287 N. E. 2d 860.