Court Opinion

ID: 9860217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:14:39.035275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:19:17.678114
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Result
Givan, C.J.
I concur with the result of the majority opinion but feel compelled to point out certain dicta in the majority opinion which I consider to be wholly erroneous. The majority opinion observes that the appellant made a motion to suppress evidence of the out of court identification of the appellant, which motion was fully heard and overruled by the trial court. The majority then states that the failure to object to the introduction of this evidence at the trial was not a waiver and not necessary in the case.
For authority the majority cites Candler v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 440, 363 N.E.2d 1233 and Stowers v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 403, 363 N.E.2d 978. The majority’s position in this dictum is in direct opposition to a long line of authorities in this State discussed in Harrison v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 359, 281 N.E.2d 98, wherein it is stated:
“. . . if on trial a defendant does not object to evidence obtained by an illegal search warrant he cannot complain of the action of the trial court in overruling his motion to suppress.” (citing authorities including 50 A.L.R.2d 531, 591)
Hunter, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported at 365 N.E.2d 766.