Hoskins v. State
| Decision Date | 17 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-576A196,2-576A196 |
| Citation | 174 Ind.App. 475,367 N.E.2d 1388 |
| Parties | Earl HOSKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Edward L. Goebel, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Wesley T. Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Earl D. Hoskins (Hoskins) was tried by court and found guilty of possession of heroin.
We affirm.
The evidence most favorable to the State reveals that on July 11, 1974, Officer J. C. Crawford of the Indianapolis Police Department obtained a warrant to search a residence allegedly occupied by Hoskins and his wife, Judy Carter. Crawford and a fellow officer served Hoskins with the warrant as Hoskins was entering the residence in question on July 12, 1974. The search of the premises produced a vial containing a brown powdery substance. Hoskins was arrested after a field test indicated the substance was heroin. A subsequent laboratory analysis confirmed this finding.
Hoskins challenges his conviction on the basis that:
(1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained in the search because the warrant was issued in reliance upon a defective affidavit;
(2) the evidence was insufficient to show "possession" of heroin; and
(3) the State failed to show a proper chain of custody of the seized substance.
The search warrant was issued on the basis of an affidavit by Officer Crawford attesting to information supplied by to him by an undisclosed but previously-reliable informant. The affidavit recited that the informant stated he had made previous purchases of heroin from Hoskins at the residence in question.
Hoskins contends that Crawford's affidavit was defective on two counts: (1) it failed to show that Crawford had any knowledge of the informant's credibility, and (2) it failed to reveal any facts indicating the informant had "personal knowledge" of the statements he made.
The standards for determining the sufficiency of an affidavit based on credible hearsay are set forth in I.C. 35-1-6-2 (Burns Code Ed.1975):
"No warrant for search or arrest shall be issued until there is filed with the justice of the peace, judge of any city court or magistrate's court or the judge of any court of record, an affidavit, particularly describing the house or place to be searched and the things to be searched for, or particularly describing the person to be arrested, and alleging substantially the offense in relation thereto, and that the affiant believes and has good cause to believe that such things as are to be searched for are there concealed, or that the person to be arrested committed said offense, and setting forth the facts then in knowledge of the affiant or information based on credible hearsay, constituting the probable cause. When based on credible hearsay, the affidavit shall contain reliable information supplied to the affiant by a credible person, named or unnamed, and it shall contain the following:
(a) Affirmative allegations that the credible person spoke with personal knowledge of the matters contained therein.
(b) The facts within the personal knowledge of the credible person.
(c) The facts within the affiant's knowledge as to the credibility of the credible person.
An affidavit for search substantially in the following form shall be deemed sufficient:
A.B. swears (or affirms, as the case may be) that he believes and has good cause to believe (here set forth the facts and information constituting the probable cause) that (here describe the things to be searched for and the offense in relation thereto) are concealed in or about the (here describe the house or place) of C.D., situated in county of ______ in said state.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ______ day of ______, 19______.
An affidavit upon which to base an arrest substantially in the form described in section 171 (repealed) of this act, as amended, shall be deemed sufficient."
The affidavit stated "F. I. J. C. Crawford swears or affirms that he believes and has good cause to believe that heroin, a derivative of opium property, possession of which is unlawful is in the possession and under control of Earl D. Hoskins, Jr. and Judy Carter of 3359 N. College Avenue, Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana.
The basis of this belief of this affiant is that he received reliable and credible information from a reliable and credible informant who has given a said affiant information in the past which has led to at least four (4) arrests and two (2) convictions. The said informant told the said affiant that he had purchased heroin, a derivative of opium from the said Earl D. Hoskins, Jr. at the said 3359 College Avenue, Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana on several occasions. The said informant further told the said affiant that he purchased a tin foil package of heroin, a derivative of opium at the above said address from the said Earl D. Hoskins, Jr. within the past three (3) days. Based upon the above information, this affiant requests permission to search the residence of Earl D. Hoskins, Jr. and Judy Carter, 3359 N. College, Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana, which is a white, wooden frame, two (2) story house, a double home, the said home is the second house south of 34th Street on the east side of the street, the south side of the double at College Avenue. The above said home contains three (3) bedrooms, 1 bathroom, a living room, dining room, kitchen, basement, attic, and is known as 3359 N. College Avenue, Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. I request that this search include, but not be limited to all rooms, closets, drawers, storage areas, personal effects and any other area where the above said heroin, a derivative of opium, may be concealed, or any other evidence of a conspiracy to commit a violation of the Controlled Substances Act."
Hoskins' first contention, that the credibility of the informant was not established, is without merit. Officer Crawford stated in the affidavit that he had previously received from the informant reliable information which had led to four arrests and two convictions. 1 It is well-established that a statement in an affidavit declaring that the informant has previously supplied valid information is sufficient to satisfy the Indiana statutory requirement of facts as to the informant's credibility. See Foxall v. State (1st Dist.1973) 157 Ind.App. 19, 298 N.E.2d 470.
Hoskins further asserts that no facts were produced showing sufficient underlying circumstances upon which the informant based his conclusion that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tinnin v. State
...statutory requirement of facts as to the credibility of the informant. Webster v. State, (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 328; Hoskins v. State, (1977) Ind.App., 367 N.E.2d 1388. Defendant's contention is, therefore, without Defendant also maintains that the information upon which the affidavit was ......
-
Webster v. State
...valid information is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement of facts as to the credibility of the informant. Hoskins v. State (1977) Ind.App., 367 N.E.2d 1388. Here, the affidavit to the search warrant recites the facts stated above which are sufficient to establish her reliability......
- Adoption of Dove, In re