Hall v. State, 1069S251

Citation266 N.E.2d 16,255 Ind. 606
Decision Date01 February 1971
Docket NumberNo. 1069S251,1069S251
PartiesDode Merl HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 16

266 N.E.2d 16
255 Ind. 606
Dode Merl HALL, Appellant,
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 1069S251.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Feb. 1, 1971.

Page 17

Paul B. McNellis, Kenneth M. Waterman, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

[255 Ind. 607] Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., David S. Wedding, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Judge.

Appellant was charged by affidavit with the crime of first degree burglary. Trial by jury resulted in a conviction and a sentence of not less than ten nor more than twenty years in the Indiana State Reformatory.

The record in this case discloses the following:

Sometime between October 4, 1968, and October 6, 1968, while the occupants were away for the weekend, a residence was burglarized in Ft. Wayne, Indiana, and a number of personal items identified in evidence were taken from the residence.

On October 21, 1968, the Ft. Wayne police were notified by the Vincennes, Indiana, police that one Hugh McLemore had been stopped by one of their officers for a traffic violation. A passenger in McLemore's car started firing at the police officer. Upon arrest of the subjects the car was searched and two weapons and a can of chemical Mace, which had been taken in the Ft. Wayne burglary, were recovered. The arrested subjects gave their address as 2417 Allegheny Avenue, Ft. Wayne, Indiana. Ft. Wayne police learned that this address was also the home of the appellant, Dode Merl Hall. They immediately placed the residents at 2417 Allegheny in Ft. Wayne under surveillance. A search warrant was obtained. The appellant, his wife and children and another suspect named Snow were apprehended shortly after leaving the house, shown the search warrant and returned to the house where a systematic search was conducted. During the search several additional articles were recovered which had been taken in the earlier burglary. At the time of the arrest appellant was fully apprized of his constitutional rights. Police officers testified that they also advised the appellant that his wife was a prime suspect in the burglary for which the appellant had been arrested and other burglaries in which he was also a suspect. However, the wife, after being questioned,[255 Ind. 608] was permitted to remain at large with her children, but did return to the jail on several different occasions to talk with her husband.

The introduction into evidence of appellant's confession requires a reversal of this case for reasons which will be stated subsequently in this opinion. However, because a retrial in this case is probable, we will proceed to deal with other questions which are raised in this appeal and will re-occur upon retrial.

Appellant first claims the trial court erred in admitting into evidence State's Exhibit C, which was a file marked copy of an affidavit for a search warrant issued by the Allen Circuit Court. It is appellant's claim that the affidavit for search warrant did not give rise to a 'probable cause belief' that the specific property described would be found in the place to be searched. The affidavit stated that the Vincennes officers had pursuant to a valid arrest recovered goods taken in the Ft. Wayne burglary and had obtained the address of the place to be searched from the subjects arrested, who stated that that address was their home. This affidavit was clearly sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of a search

Page 18

warrant. We therefore hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant.

Appellant next claims error in that the trial court admitted State's Exhibits A and B into evidence. Exhibit A was a small bank which was identified as having been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Magley v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 21, 1975
    ...his family. Contrast Haynes v. Washington, supra; Rogers v. Richmond (1961), 365 U.S. 534, 81 S.Ct. 735, 5 L.Ed.2d 760; Hall v. State (1971), 255 Ind. 606, 266 N.E.2d 16. After hearing the witnesses present this new matter, the trial court correctly decided at this point in the trial that t......
  • Kordenbrock v. Scroggy
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • February 16, 1988
    ...514 (1974). The state cases relied on by petitioner, see e.g., Hawthorne v. State, Fla.App., 377 So.2d 780 (1979), Hall v. State, 255 Ind. 606, 266 N.E.2d 16 (1971), Ware v. State, Fla.App., 307 So.2d 255 (1975), People v. Freeman, 668 P.2d 1371 (Colo.1983), are distinguishable because of p......
  • Contreras v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • June 9, 2010
    ...585, 6 Cal.Rptr. 759, 354 P.2d 231, 236 (1960) (implied threat that wife would be held until suspect confessed); Hall v. Indiana, 255 Ind. 606, 610-11, 266 N.E.2d 16, 19 (1971) (threat to charge and convict wife used to encourage suspect to 27 Allen v. McCotter, 804 F.2d 1362, 1364 (5th Cir......
  • Stokes v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • December 10, 1980
    ..."to juvenile"); Jarriel v. State, 317 So.2d 141 (Fla.App.1975) (threat to arrest wife unless defendant made statement); Hall v. State, 255 Ind. 606, 266 N.E.2d 16 (1971) (statement made after police noted that if defendant did not confess, his wife would be arrested and his children placed ......
  • 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