Milbourn v. State, 26771.
| Decision Date | 08 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 26771.,26771. |
| Citation | 212 Ind. 161,8 N.E.2d 985 |
| Parties | MILBOURN v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Paul Milbourn was convicted of knowingly receiving stolen clover seed, and he appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Shelby Circuit Court; Arthur C. Van Duyn, Special judge.
Chas. L. Tindall, of Greenfield, and Fred V. Cramer, of Shelbyville, for appellant.
Omer Stokes Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Glen L. Steckley, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of knowingly receiving stolen clover seed.
Error is assigned upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial.
The only question involves the admission of the testimony of the sheriff and deputy sheriffs, detailing a conversation in which appellant admitted receiving the stolen goods, with knowledge that it was stolen, and having sold it for his own benefit.
The sheriff, armed with an invalid search warrant, arrested appellant and took him to his farm. While appellant sat in an automobile, the sheriff and his deputies searched the place. After the search was completed, they interrogated appellant, who voluntarily admitted his guilt. Before the trial, upon motion, the search warrant was held to be invalid, and evidence obtained in the search was excluded. An objection to the testimony of the sheriff and his deputies concerning the confession and admission of appellant was overruled. Appellant contends that the confession and admission were obtained under color of the invalid search warrant, and that the testimony therefore should have been excluded.
The constitutional provision protecting the citizen in his person, house, papers, and effects against search or seizure without warrant is different and distinct from the provision protecting him against being required to give evidence against himself. The confession or admission of guilt was obtained, not through the search warrant, but through voluntary answers to questions. The sheriff had the right to question appellant on his premises, or anywhere, but appellant was not required to answer. Section 9–1607, Burns'Ann.st.1933, section 2263, Baldwin's Ind. St. 1934, provides: ‘The confession of a defendant made under inducement, with all the circumstances, may be given in evidence against him, except when made under the influence of fear produced by threats or by intimidation or undue influence; but a confession made under inducement is not sufficient to warrant a conviction without corroborating evidence.’ There is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Evans
...and the demonstration at the burglarized store, all are referred to as defendant's confession.6 We note that in Milbourn v. State, 212 Ind. 161, 8 N.E.2d 985, and Quan v. State, 185 Miss. 513, 188 So. 568, the confessions were held admissible. Aside from our doubts as to whether the cases w......
-
People v. Gauthier
...193 S.W.2d [31,] 37, 38, concurring opinion of Hyde, J.; State v. Guastamachio, 137 Conn. 179, 75 A.2d 429, 431; cf., Milbourn v. State, 212 Ind. 161, 8 N.E.2d 985, 986; Quan v. State 185 Miss. 513, 188 So. 568, 569; 14 So.Cal.L.Rev. 477, and the victim of a coerced confession has been depr......
-
Quan v. State
... ... only case found by either side which seems to us to be ... squarely in point is Milbourn v. State, 212 Ind ... 161, 8 N.E.2d 985, the holding in which is adverse to ... appellant's contention. But instead of following all the ... ...
-
Rogers v. Superior Court of Alameda County
...Mo. 998, 193 S.W.2d 37, 38 concurring opinion of Hyde, J.; State v. Guastamachio, 137 Conn. 179, 75 A.2d 429, 431; cf., Milbourn v. State, 212 Ind. 161, 8 N.E.2d 985, 986; Quan v. State, 185 Miss. 513, 188 So. 568, 569; 14 So.Cal.L.Rev. 477, and the victim of a coerced confession has been d......