State v. Cobb
| Decision Date | 06 March 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 7312SC765,7312SC765 |
| Citation | 202 S.E.2d 801,21 N.C.App. 66 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Danny E. COBB. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan by E. Thomas Maddox, Jr., Associate Atty., Raleigh, for the State.
Frye, Johnson & Barbee by Ronald Barbee, Greensboro, for defendant appellant.
The evidence of defendant's guilt was cogent. Defendant's only assignment of error is that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant.
Defendant first argues that 'the State failed to introduce into evidence the affidavit to obtain the search warrant' and that this constitutes error. The record discloses that the trial judge examined the affidavit and warrant and determined the validity of the warrant as a matter of law. The affidavit and warrant were made a part of the record. This was the proper procedure. Our court has adopted the rule that when documentary evidence is regularly admitted, it is presumed that its contents are made known to the jury. Generally the search warrant and accompanying affidavits should not be introduced into evidence because they usually contain statements which are incompetent and the admission of such evidence can constitute prejudicial error. State v. Spillars, 280 N.C. 341, 185 S.E.2d 881.
The court conducted a Voir dire to determine the validity of the search warrant. Nevertheless, when the officer who executed the affidavit was called, the court sustained defendant's objections to evidence not contained in the affidavit. The defendant, of course, does not complain of this favorable ruling on his objections. We observe, however, that if on Voir dire to determine probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, the court confines itself to a repetition of matters set out in the affidavit, one of the reasons for conducting the Voir dire on the question of probable cause becomes meaningless. If the affidavit is sufficient on its face to establish probable cause, the court can make its determination from an examination of that document. There is no requirement, constitutional or statutory, that the affidavit attached to the warrant contain All of the information necessary to establish probable cause. The statute only requires that an affidavit be attached to the warrant 'indicating the basis' for the finding of probable cause. G.S. § 15--26. On Voir dire the court can properly consider all information that was presented under oath to the official who issued the warrant. The better practice is, of course, to set out in the affidavit, in considerable detail, all of the information constituting the grounds for issuance of the warrant so that the question of the existence of probable cause can be determined by an examination of the affidavit. See State v. Wooten, 20 N.C.App. 139, 201 S.E.2d 89; State v. Logan, 18 N.C.App. 557, 197 S.E.2d 238 and State v. Milton, 7 N.C.App. 425, 173 S.E.2d 60.
Defendant contends that the affidavit is insufficient to support a finding of probable cause for issuance of the search warrant. The affidavit is as follows:
'STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
County of Cumberland
In The General Court of Justice, District Court Division
STATE
v.
Danny Cobb or anyone in charge 1910 Newark St. Fayetteville, NC
William H. Nichols, Det. Sgt....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Logan
...warrant is based is whether the facts indicate that probable cause exists at the time the warrant is issued."); State v. Cobb , 21 N.C. App. 66, 69, 202 S.E.2d 801, 804 (1974) (holding a "magistrate could realistically and reasonably conclude from the affidavit that the informer observed th......
-
State v. Singleton
...affidavit otherwise shows facts from which a magistrate could reasonably determine that probable cause to search exists. State v. Cobb, 21 N.C.App. 66, 202 S.E.2d 801, cert. den., 285 N.C. 374, 205 S.E.2d 99 (1974). The affidavit in the present case, unlike that in Cobb, narrowed down the i......
-
State v. Williams, 805SC350
...the informant allegedly observed hashish in defendant's apartment. This contention was answered by this Court in State v. Cobb, 21 N.C.App. 66, 69, 202 S.E.2d 801, 804 (1974), cert. denied, 285 N.C. 374, 205 S.E.2d 99 (1974), wherein Judge Vaughn wrote for the "Defendant contends that the a......
- State v. Gray, 7410SC100