Mata v. State
| Decision Date | 24 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | 25,888 |
| Citation | 179 N.E. 916,203 Ind. 291 |
| Parties | Mata v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
1. CRIMINAL LAW---Motion to Suppress Evidence---Method of Presenting Question for Review on Appeal.---Alleged error of the trial court in overruling a motion to suppress evidence must be specified as a cause for a new trial under cl. 1 2325 Burns 1926, and cannot be assigned as error on appeal p. 292.
2. APPEALS---Review of Ruling on the Evidence---How Presented for Review.---Alleged errors in the admission or exclusion of evidence can be presented for review on appeal only by making them grounds for a new trial and cannot be assigned as errors on appeal. p. 293.
3. MOTIONS---Proof Necessary---Recitals of Fact must be Proved by Evidence---Verification Insufficient.---Recitals of fact in a motion require proof the same as an allegation of fact in any other pleading or paper. The court is not required to take allegations of fact in a motion as true unless they have been shown to be true by evidence. p. 293.
4. CRIMINAL LAW---Motion to Suppress Evidence---Motion Itself not Proof of Statements Therein---Objection Thereto Properly Sustained.---At a hearing on a verified motion to suppress evidence, the motion itself is not competent proof of the statements therein, and an objection to the introduction in evidence of the motion was properly sustained. p. 293.
5. CRIMINAL LAW---Motion to Quash Search Warrant and Suppress Evidence---Burden of Proof---Motion Properly Overruled for Lack of Evidence.---Where a defendant introduced no evidence in support of his motion to quash the search warrant issued in his case and to suppress the evidence obtained thereby because of the invalidity of the warrant, there was no error in overruling the motion, as he had the affirmative of the issue and the burden was on him to introduce evidence in support of his motion. p. 295.
6. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES---Search Warrant---Reciting that Evidence was Heard as to Probable Cause---Presumption on Appeal.---Where a search warrant recites that the judge issuing it heard evidence and judicially determined the existence of probable cause for issuing such warrant, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it will be presumed on appeal that it recites the truth (Wallace v. State, 199 Ind 317, 157 N.E. 657, distinguished). p. 295.
7. APPEALS---Review of Rulings of Trial Court---Presumption on Appeal.---Unless there is an affirmative showing of error on appeal, the presumption is in favor of the rulings of the trial court. p. 295.
8. CRIMINAL LAW---Evidence Obtained by Search Warrant---Warrant must be Introduced in Evidence---Other Proof Necessary.---Before the State can lawfully introduce evidence obtained by virtue of a search warrant, it must introduce in evidence the warrant under which the search and seizure were had, and show that the evidence was obtained lawfully and is competent, and that it is entitled to introduce the same against the defendant in the case on trial. p. 296.
9. CRIMINAL LAW---Competency of Evidence Obtained by Search Warrant---Validity of Search Warrant must be Established---Warrant must be Introduced or Contents Proved.---A conviction cannot be sustained where it appears from the evidence that the discovery and seizure of evidence was made by virtue of a search warrant the validity of which was not established by the introduction of the warrant itself or by proof of its contents. p. 298.
10. CRIMINAL LAW---Sufficiency of Evidence---When Obtained by Search Warrant---Held Insufficient.---Where the only evidence tending to establish defendant's guilt was the testimony of two police officers as to what they found while searching defendant's premises, and the search warrant was not introduced in evidence or its validity established, the verdict against defendant was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and, therefore, was contrary to law. p. 299.
From Lake Criminal Court; Martin J. Smith, Judge.
Joe Mata was convicted of having unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he appealed.
Reversed.
Patterson & Thiel and John A. Sabo, for appellant.
James M. Ogden, Attorney-General, and Merl M. Wall, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
The appellant was found guilty by the Lake Criminal Court of the crime of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. He has appealed from a judgment of fine and imprisonment at the Indiana State Farm.
The first assignment of error is that the court erred in overruling the motion of the appellant to suppress and reject certain evidence. Alleged error of the trial court in overruling a motion to suppress and reject evidence must be specified as a cause for a new trial, under § 2325 subd. 1, Burns 1926, and not as an independent error. Volderauer v. State (1924), 195 Ind. 415, 143 N.E. 674; Chappelle v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 640, 149 N.E. 163; Welch v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 258, 150 N.E. 761.
The third, fourth, fifth and sixth assignments of error relate to rulings on evidence at the trial, and can be presented only by the motion for a new trial and not as independent errors.
The second assignment of error is that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. Twenty alleged causes for same are stated in the motion.
One of the causes for a new trial was that the court erred in sustaining the objection of the State to the introduction in evidence of the verified motion of the appellant to suppress and reject the evidence, upon the hearing on that motion. The court is not required to take allegations of fact in a motion as true unless they have been shown to be true by the evidence. Recitals of fact in a motion require proof the same as an allegation of fact in any other pleading or paper. Alyea v. State (1926), 198 Ind. 364, 152 N.E. 801, 153 N.E. 775. Self-serving declarations contained in pleadings are, as a general rule, inadmissible. 2 Jones, Commentaries on Evidence (2d ed.) 1601, § 876. The motion and answer thereto fixed the issues and informed the court as to the extent of the issues. The motion could be sustained only by proof of the facts therein alleged. This proof could not be made by the admission in evidence of the motion. The court did not err in said ruling.
The appellant claims that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the search warrant and affidavit therefor and to suppress and reject certain evidence because of the invalidity of the search warrant. The State, by the prosecuting attorney, filed a general denial to this motion. The objection to the search warrant was that it was issued without probable cause. It is shown by the record that, when this motion was submitted to the court for hearing, neither side introduced any evidence. It appears that the affidavit for the search warrant stated that Oscar Salzman, who was a police officer, swore that he believed and had good cause and reason to believe that John Doe, whose true name was unknown, had in his possession certain intoxicating liquors, which were possessed in violation of the laws of the State of Indiana at number 1525 Adams Street in the city of Gary. A copy of the search warrant was made an exhibit to the motion, and the search warrant, signed by the judge of the city court of the city of Gary, contained the following: "And whereas, from oral evidence heard by me after said affidavit was filed, I found that probable cause exists for believing that the things described in said affidavit are being concealed in or about the premises described and are being there kept unlawfully and in relation to the offense named in the affidavit." In the motion, the following is alleged: "This affiant says no oral evidence was in fact heard or attempted to be heard by the said C. N. Greenlee as Judge of the City Court of any facts showing probable cause but that the testimony if any was given by the said Oscar Salzman was given entirely on suspicion, guesswork and rumor; and that the said Oscar Salzman did not know of his own knowledge that this affiant was in possession of any of the things set out and alleged in the affidavit for search filed in this cause." The motion to quash the search warrant herein can be distinguished from the one in Wallace v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 317, 157 N.E. 657, as the motion in the instant case shows by the search warrant that oral evidence was heard and the court found that probable cause existed for issuing the search warrant; while in the Wallace Case, the affidavit on information and belief before the court was the sole and only proof in support of probable cause. Appellant, by his motion to quash and suppress, challenges the sufficiency of the search warrant; not by reason of anything which...
To continue reading
Request your trial