Rohlfing v. State
| Decision Date | 15 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 28806,28806 |
| Citation | 230 Ind. 236,102 N.E.2d 763 |
| Parties | ROHLFING v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
John R. Frazier, Rushville, Wickens & Wickens, Greensburg, for appellant.
J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., John Ready O'Connor, William T. McClain, Deputy Attys. Gen., Ronald Beard, Pros. Atty., Greensburg, for appellee.
In its petition for rehearing, apparently prepared by the prosecuting attorney of the 69th Judicial Circuit, the State complains that we held, in effect, that articles seized in an unlawful search 'become sacred and inaccessible.' We did not mean to so hold.
The cases below noted are now cited to sustain the State's assertion that where knowledge of the defendant's possession of articles used or useful in violating the law is gained or had by witnesses independently of the violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, the testimony of such witnesses may be heard. Walker v. State, 1928, 200 Ind. 303, 163 N.E. 229; Flum v. State, 1923, 193 Ind. 585, 141 N.E. 353; Shorter v. State, 1929, 89 Ind.App. 288, 166 N.E. 287. It is now asserted that if other witnesses could testify that the stolen articles were in appellant's home prior to the search, or if the defendant took the stand and admitted possession of the articles, they would be admissible in evidence, and the mere bringing of the articles into court is not of itself reversible error.
These assertions may rest on solid ground. It may also be that the articles in question could properly be produced in court and identified by the owner as the articles which were stolen from him in connection with proof that they were stolen. But those questions were not presented, and we did not and do not mean to intimate the answer to any of them.
It was not asserted, nor does the record show, that the articles were produced so that any other witness could identify them as articles seen by him in appellant's home before it was searched. It was not claimed, nor does the record show, that they were produced for the purpose of establishing them merely as the articles which had been stolen. There was no claim that the State was forewarned or had any reason to believe that the appellant would testify, and they wished to cross-examine him concerning them, and in fact the appellant did not testify.
We did not hold that because the appellant's premises were unlawfully searched and the articles were illegally seized they could under no circumstances and for no purpose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stearsman v. State, 29373
...such articles into evidence. To support this contention appellants rely upon Rohlfing v. State, 1952, 230 Ind. 236, 102 N.E.2d 199, 102 N.E.2d 763, and Derry v. State, 1932, 204 Ind. 21, 182 N.E. In the Rohlfing case a motion to suppress the articles which were displayed at the trial had be......