Greer v. State, 1068
Decision Date | 16 March 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 1068,1068 |
Citation | 255 N.E.2d 919,253 Ind. 609 |
Parties | James E. GREER, Robert L. Greer, Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. S 169. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Palmer K. Ward, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Theodore Sendak, Atty. Gen., Kenneth M. McDermott, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellants were charged by affidavit with the crimes of robbery and inflicting physical injuries in the commission of a robbery. A trial by jury resulted in appellants being found guilty as charged.
We are presented with two issues, both of which involve the admissability of certain evidence. In particular it is urged that the State Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, being two ski masks and various items of clothing, were the product of an illegal search of the home of the appellant James Greer. The State's Exhibit 7 and 16 were two jackets said to be the product of an illegal search of an automobile parked in front of appellant James Greer's home. The factual situation with reference to this robbery is as follows:
At approximately 11:00 p.m., on the evening of January 22, 1968, two men wearing black ski masks entered the Pla-Mor Tavern which is located in Indianapolis. They were both brandishing sawed-off shotguns. One of the robbers, after striking a waitress on the head, ordered everyone in the tavern to lie on the floor. His counterpart then proceeded to remove the money from the cash register behind the bar. While these events were taking place, Officers Carter and Dunkin of the Indianapolis Police Department pulled into the tavern's parking lot, unaware of the fact that a robbery was taking place. Officer Dunkin entered the tavern by way of the back door for the purpose of picking up his car keys. Dunkin was accosted by the robbers and relieved of his revolver. Officer Carter who had remained in the car found himself facing a double barreled sawed-off shotgun, which one of the robbers had stuck through the car window. Upon being ordered out of the car, Carter attempted to dive from the car and was shot in the back and fell to the ground.
Officer Dunkin, upon seeing his partner wounded, attempted to flee from the tavern and he too was shot, being struck in the foot. The robbers then fled. Officer Carter managed to reach his car radio and put in a signal for help. Officers Sandler and Viles of the Indianapolis Police Department reached the tavern at approximately 11:30 p.m. in response to the signal for assistance; they remained at the scene assisting the wounded and seaching for evidence until about 1:30 a.m. Shortly after 1:00 a.m. on January 23, 1968, a man driving his automobile along River Drive struck a man carrying a sawed-off shotgun and a black ski mask who had darted into the street. The impact caused the shotgun to discharge. The driver reported the incident to the police and identified and accident victim as the appellant James Greer. This identification was based upon the driver having seen both of the appellants on prior occasions at the Pla-Mor Tavern. The police were shown the direction James Greer had taken through a vacant lot after being struck by the car.
At about 1:30 a.m. Officers Sandler and Viles left the tavern and joined in the search. Viles spotted the appellants, both of whom were armed with shotguns. Officers Viles and Sandler gave chase on foot. Appellant James Greer opened fire on the officers and in the ensuing exchange of gunfire James Greer was wounded in the hand. He was finally apprehended on the front porch of a house; it was then approximately 1:45 a.m. Robert Greer escaped capture at the time. This occurred within a block or two or the homes of both Robert Greer and James Greer. The search for Robert Greer intensified in that area. The search for the fleeing suspects brought the officers to the home of James Greer. At this point James Greer's wife, who had been at her brother's house at 1041 River Avenue, arrived at her own home at 1020 River Avenue. Officer Pervitas told her he was looking for the appellant Robert Greer, the brother of her husband, and asked if the police could enter the house of James Greer to look for Robert Greer. She was advised that she did not have to let the police enter. At this point the evidence is conflicting. The officer testified that they were given permission to enter and James Greer's wife unlocked the door. Mrs. James Greer denied that she ever consented to the entry of the police. Officer Pervitas and Lieutenant Straton entered the residence at approximately 2:00 a.m. in search of Robert Greer. Upon entering the officers observed ski masks on the floor and in the doorway of a room adjacent to the living room. Another mask and other articles of clothing were found on the floor. The officers had earlier been advised as to the clothing and the mask worn by the robbers. These items became State's Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. From an automobile parked in front of the residence two jackets were taken. These items became State's Exhibit 7 and 16. Appellant Robert Greer was not found in the house. He was later apprehended at 1041 River Avenue, after being observed in the house at that address. It is urged that Mrs. James Greer had no authority to grant the police officers the right to search the residence of herself and her husband and further that James Greer had been arrested prior to the entry of the police. There is a conflict of evidence in that respect, however. We thus have issues of fact to be determined by the trier with reference to the evidence. These factual issues were determined against the appellants. Credibility of the witnesses are here involved as well as other surrounding circumstances and where the evidence is in conflict we will accept the finding below if it is supported by the evidence. And we find that it is.
We point out also that Robert Greer had no right to make any objection to a search of another person's property, namely that of his brother's. Minton v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 307, 214 N.E.2d 380, reaffirmed in Leonard v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 361, 369, 232 N.E.2d 882. In the latter case this court said, 'But even if the search were improper the appellant can not raise any question as to the legality of the search of property belonging to other persons.'
The appellant James Greer further argues that assuming his wife attempted to grant consent to the search of his home she had no such authority so far as he was concerned. We believe the wife, as a person in joint possession, could lawfully consent to the entry of the police officers in her own right. In holding that under the particular circumstances herein involved the wife could effectively consent to the entry of the police we have ample support. People v. Dominguez (1956), 144 Cal.App.2d 63, 300 P.2d 194; People v. Carter (1957), 48 Cal.2d 737, 312 P.2d 665; People v. Haskell (1968), 41 Ill.2d 25, 241 N.E.2d 430; Bellam v. State (1964), 233 Md. 368, 196 A.2d 891; State v. Kennedy (1969), 80 N.M. 152, 452 P.2d 486; Hook v. State (1958), 15 Misc.2d 672, 181 N.Y.S.2d 621; Com. ex rel. Cabey v. Rundle (1968), 432 Pa. 466, 248 A.2d 197; Burge v. State (Tex.Cr.App.1969), 443 S.W.2d 720; Padilla v. State (1954), 160 Tex.Cr.R. 618, 273 S.W.2d 889; Wade v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary (D.Md.1968), 278 F.Supp. 904; United States v. Eldridge (4th Cir. 1962), 302 F.2d 463; United States v. Sferas (7th Cir. 1954), 210 F.2d 69, cert. denied Skally v. United States, 347 U.S. 935, 74 S.Ct. 630, 98 L.Ed. 1086; Roberts v. United States (8th Cir. 1964), 332 F.2d 892; Maxwell v. Stephens (8th Cir. 1965), 348 F.2d 325; Burge v. United States (9th Cir. 1965), 342 F.2d 408; Nelson v. People of State of California (9th Cir. 1965), 346 F.2d 73. However, we are not disposed to uphold the ruling of the trial court upon the basis of consent alone. There seems to us to be other grounds for permitting the testimony and the admission of the exhibits in this case.
It appears to us that if there ever was an occasion in which the old common law principle of hue and cry and the right to pursue fleeing suspects or criminals is applicable this would be one of those cases.
The police at this time had more than reasonable belief that a felony had been committed, in fact, that multiple felony had been perpetrated. Two policemen had been wounded at the scene of the robbery and subsequent gun battles had taken place. Descriptions of the suspects were given within a few minutes after the robbery. The police were informed of an automobile accident a short distance away in which James Greer was knocked down and a sawed-off shotgun discharged which he was carrying. He was carrying a ski mask. James Greer was recognized by the driver of the car. The police were, within minutes, upon the scene where this occurred and started in pursuit. Shortly thereafter, they caught up with the appellants and engaged in a gun battle with them. James Greer was injured. He was thereafter apprehended but Robert Greer escaped. The police continued the pursuit. The scene of this gun battle was within a few blocks of the homes of Robert Greer and James Greer. Common sense would dictate that the police should go to the homes of these two fleeing suspects in their attempt to find them.
In Capps v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 472, 229 N.E.2d 794, Judge Hunter speaking for this court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Martin
...63, 300 P.2d 194; People v. Shambley, 4 Ill.2d 38, 122 N.E.2d 172; People v. Harvey, 48 Ill. App.2d 261, 199 N.E.2d 236; Greer v. State, Ind., 255 N.E.2d 919; State v. Shephard, 255 Iowa 1218, 124 N.W.2d 712; Bellam v. State, 233 Md. 368, 196 A.2d 891. The defendant argues further that in a......
-
Butler v. State
...suppression of evidence sought to be introduced against him. Kirkland v. State, (1968) 249 Ind. 305, 232 N.E.2d 365; Greer v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 609, 255 N.E.2d 919; United States v. Eversole, (7th Cir. 1954) 209 F.2d 766. Objection to an illegal search and seizure of a third party's pr......
-
Montague v. State
...the whereabouts of the gun supplied consent to the limited 'search' that occurred. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra; Greer v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 609, 255, N.E.2d 919. Having come across the Appellant's gun in a permissible fashion, there is no question that police properly seized the we......
-
Gilman v. State
...premises after he told them to leave. First, the wife could lawfully consent to the officers entry in her own right. Greer v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 609, 255 N.E.2d 919. Secondly, a consent or license removes what would otherwise be the status of a trespasser. See, e. g., Bennett v. McIntir......