Roberts v. State, 2--374A58
| Decision Date | 04 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--374A58,2--374A58 |
| Citation | 328 N.E.2d 429,164 Ind.App. 354 |
| Parties | Janet ROBERTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Palmer K. Ward, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Wesley T. Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Before SULLIVAN, P.J., and BUCHANAN and WHITE, JJ.
Appellant-defendant Janet Roberts (Roberts) was convicted of possession of hereoin, 1 possession of cocaine, 2 and possession of injection equipment. 3 The sole issue preserved for appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting in evidence a duplicate original search warrant.
We affirm.
On the strength of information provided by a reliable informant, an Indianapolis Police Department narcotics detective sought and obtained a warrant authorizing the search of Roberts' residence for illegal narcotics. Pursuant to a search based upon the warrant, detectives seized quantities of heroin and cocaine as well as injection equipment, a .32 caliber revolver and three hundred seventy-six dollars ($376.00) in cash.
Prior to trial, Roberts unsuccessfully challenged the sufficiency of the search warrant. At trial, she objected to any testimony concerning the search until the State introduced the warrant in evidence. When the State attempted to introduce the actual warrant served by the detectives, Roberts unsuccessfully objected on the ground that the warrant was only a copy and the State had not accounted for the original.
The warrant introduced over Roberts' objection appears to be a duplicate original, i.e., a carbon copy. It bears the official file stamp of the court clerk as well as the original signatures of the affiant detective and issuing judge.
Roberts contends that before the State was entitled to introduce the testimony of the detectives who searched her residence under the pretext of a search warrant, a valid warrant must have been introduced in evidence. Roberts argues that in the absence of an accounting for the original, the 'copy' introduced did not suffice to prove the existence of a valid search warrant. Therefore, it was improper to admit testimony regarding the fruits of the search.
Where it appears at trial the discovery and seizure of evidence is attempted to be justified by the possession of a search warrant, the validity of such warrant must be established by the introduction of the warrant itself or by proof of its contents. Mata v. State (1932), 203 Ind. 291, 179 N.E. 916; George v. State (1936), 210...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. State
...had occasion to reconsider the appropriateness of the procedure. Hardin v. State (1976) Ind., 353 N.E.2d 462, 463; Roberts v. State (1975) Ind.App., 328 N.E.2d 429, 430.4 As the Indiana Supreme Court acknowledged in George v. State (1936) 210 Ind. 592, 594, 1 N.E.2d 583, the probable cause ......
-
Hardin v. State
...originals and are admissible on the same basis as the originals. Johnson v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 333 N.E.2d 307; Roberts v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 328 N.E.2d 429. The requirement erected by Mata v. State, (1937) 203 Ind. 291, 179 N.E. 916, that the search warrant under which a search an......
- Liford v. State
-
Johnson v. State, 2--1074A255
...a well established principle that executed carbon duplicates of documents are to be regarded as originals. Recently, in Roberts v. State (1975), Ind.App., 328 N.E.2d 429, this Court '. . . (S)igned carbon copies of documents are to be regarded as duplicate originals, any of which may be rec......