Court Opinion

ID: 9860227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:15:03.314747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:30.972630
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Givan, C.J.
I feel compelled to write a concurring opinion in this case because of the dicta contained in the opinion. Although the majority opinion holds the admission of evidence seized at the time of appellant’s arrest to be harmless error, the majority opinion nevertheless contains several pages of unnecessary dicta wherein it is stated that police officers unlawfully removed a wallet from appellant’s car at the time he was arrested. It is abundantly clear from the evidence set out in the majority opinion that the police officers had probable cause to arrest the appellant and to search his automobile. The dictum contained in the majority opinion on this subject is completely contrary to the existing law in Indiana and very well might be misleading to persons reading this opinion in the future.
The same is true of the manner in which the majority opinion handles the introduction of a shotgun shell into evi*461dence. Although the majority eventually holds that it was proper to introduce the shotgun shell in evidence, that holding is preceded in the opinion by erroneous dictum stating that the chain of custody of the exhibit was insufficient. The evidence as recited by the majority opinion establishes abundantly, under the existing case law in Indiana, that there was in fact a proper chain of custody in this case.
Hunter, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported at 363 N.E.2d 1233.