Court Opinion

ID: 9765955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:26:33.683116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:17.195380
License: Public Domain

MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the affirmance of this conviction but, because of the recent holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, and Jones v. U. S., 362 U. S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, 1 cannot agree that appellant had no standing to complain of the search. I do, however, find that the evidence is sufficient to show that this search was made with the consent of Willard Henry. Officer Gray testified, in the absence of the jury, that Henry told him that he owned the apartment, exhibited a key to him, was with Gray and String-fellow at the time of the search, and gave them permission to enter.
The court heard the conflicting testimony of Henry and decided the issue of consent against appellant.