MacGregor v. State

Citation231 N.E.2d 241,249 Ind. 195
Decision Date30 November 1967
Docket NumberNo. 30806,30806
PartiesRobert MacGREGOR, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Irwin J. Prince, Michael A. Cohen, Indianapolis, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., John F. Davis, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ARTERBURN, Judge.

The appellant was indicted for the crime of rape. A jury found him guilty, and the trial court sentenced him accordingly.

The issues raised on appeal are the sufficiency of the evidence and the admission into evidence of certain matters alleged to be in violation of appellant's right against search and seizure.

The evidence shows that Patsy Kennedy stated she was 21 years of age, had one child and was expecting a second; that she was at a shopping center when she left her mother and son in front of the store about 7:15 p.m. to go about a block and a half to a parking lot to get her car and pick them up. She testified that as she was about to put her key in the ignition of her car, a man, whom she later identified as the appellant, came up behind her with a knife and forced her to enter his car which was parked directly behind hers. She described the car as a 1952 Chevrolet, maroon color. Following the subsequent ride, the appellant forced her to disrobe and reped her under the threat of the knife he held. At one time she tried to escape by attempting to open the right front door, but it would not open. The appellant told her his name was Bob. After her escape she returned to her mother and son, who observed her dishevelled condition. The witness testified that on the following Monday, as she was about to enter her place of employment, she saw the appellant drive his car into the parking lot across the street. She called the police and told them that the man who raped her was across the street. She also said to the officer: 'That if it was him, that the right door would not open, that he would have a wedding band on and there would be a knife in the car. * * *' The officer then went across the street and in a few minutes came back with the appellant. She was asked if she recognized appellant and she said she did.

The appellant complains of admission of evidence to the effect that the officer went to appellant's car and attempted to open the right front door and found that it would not open. He complains that this was an improper search of his car, and the court committed error in admitting such evidence. The court sustained a motion to suppress evidence of the fact that the police officer found a knife in appellant's car. The facts heard by the court on the motion to suppress as given in the testimony of MacGregor himself are that the officer asked the appellant to accompany him to his car, and the officer stated: 'Now open your right door' and the appellant told him the right door would not open. Then the officer told him: 'That's what she--they said.' The arresting officer then instructed the appellant to get into the back seat of his patrol car. The police officer testified that after he arrested the appellant pursuant to the prosecutrix identifying him as the assailant, the officer returned to the car to search for evidence, thinking he was entitled to do so. Appellant complains that the officer had time to obtain a search warrant before he searched his car. The trial court, for some reason, suppressed the evidence as to what was found in searching the car. We must conclude there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.

With reference to appellant's contention that the officer had no right to testify as to the condition of the right front door of the car on the ground that it violated appellant's right against search and seizure, we find no support in law or fact. The testimony is what the defendant said himself upon inquiry by the officer, namely, that the right front door would not open. Additionally, anything that is observable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Bruce v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 19 d3 Abril d3 1978
    ...any member of the public passing through the alley could have seen. Montague v. State, (1977) Ind., 360 N.E.2d 181; MacGregor v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 195, 231 N.E.2d 241; United States v. Hanahan, (7th Cir. 1971) 442 F.2d Agent Allison's entry into the garage and close examination of the ......
  • Vaden v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 13 d3 Dezembro d3 1978
    ...See Vasquez v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 472, 260 N.E.2d 779; Greer v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 20, 245 N.E.2d 158; MacGregor v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 195, 231 N.E.2d 241. In his testimony, the defendant admitted that he struck and shook the child, and he also expressed remorse over his actions......
  • Harden v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 20 d2 Agosto d2 1991
    ...legal error in admitting proof of a fact is rendered harmless when the defendant himself testifies to the same fact. MacGregor v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 195, 231 N.E.2d 241. See also Vaden v. State (1978), 270 Ind. 29, 383 N.E.2d When the error is a constitutional one rather than a simple l......
  • Ruhl v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 2 d1 Dezembro d1 1974
    ...a search. Fisher v. State (1973), Ind., 291 NE.2d 76; Muegel v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 146, 272 N.E.2d 617; MacGregor v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 195, 231 N.E.2d 241. Officer Bigda's subsequent examination of the identification number was a matter of routine procedure 'in the course of arrest......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT