Taylor v. State
Decision Date | 24 September 1976 |
Citation | 337 So.2d 776 |
Parties | In re Thomas TAYLOR v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL. SC 1886. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Sarah M. Greenhaw, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, petitioner.
James K. Davis, Hamilton and Ronald H. Strawbridge, Vernon, for respondent.
Writ quashed as improvidently granted.
I would reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Thomas Taylor was convicted of larceny of two automobile tires and two car wheels. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his conviction on the ground that the tires and wheels were obtained by an illegal search. Taylor filed a motion to suppress, which included a ground that the State had produced no search warrant for the search of his house and surrounding areas. The State, at the hearing on the motion to suppress, admitted that the search warrant and affidavit could not be located. However, two deputy sheriffs who helped conduct the search with the Chief of Police of Sulligent, who had died in the meantime, both testified that they had a search warrant at the time. The defendant first testified that there was no search warrant presented to him, but later, in answer to a question, testified as follows:
' (Emphasis added.)
The Court of Criminal Appeals, in its opinion, made a finding that:
'There was no evidence adduced by the State as to the contents of the instrument in the hands of the officer at the time he appeared at defendant's home.'
It appears to me that the Court of Criminal Appeals may have inadvertently overlooked the testimony of Taylor himself to the effect that there was a search warrant and that the officers were looking for 'some tires and stolen property.' I think therefore, that the existence of a warrant was adequately shown.
Unquestionably, it was proper for the trial court, upon proof of the loss of the search warrant, to take parol evidence relating to it. Thomas v. State, 37 Ala.App. 118, 66 So.2d 103 (1953), Cert. denied, 259 Ala. 212, 66 So.2d 105 (1953), and the many cases therein cited.
The Court of Criminal Appeals states that 'For aught appearing, the instrument in the hands of the chief of police was a nullity and the search and seizure violated defendant's constitutional rights and was without authority of law.' This holding, it seems to me, ignores the fact that there was sufficient evidence that a search warrant was, In fact, shown to Taylor. Furthermore, it misplaces the burden of proof. The burden of establishing that the search was improper and that the evidence secured thereby should be suppressed was clearly on Taylor, the moving party. United States v. Gera, 409 F.2d 117 (3 Cir., 1969); United States v. Wright, 468 F.2d 1184, 1186 (6th Cir., 1972). In Rogers v. United States, 330 F.2d 535 (5 Cir., 1964), Cert. denied, 379 U.S. 916, 85 S.Ct. 265, 13 L.Ed.2d 186, the Court noted:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Parkinson
...special circumstances calling for the non-application of the rule. Taylor v. State, 337 So.2d 773 (Ala.Cr.App.1976), cert. quashed, 337 So.2d 776 (Ala.1976). See also State v. Connolly, 133 Vt. 565, 350 A.2d 364, 367 (1975); Riojas v. State, 530 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Tex.Cr.1975); United States ......
-
Huffman v. State
...Anderson v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 354 So.2d 1156 (1977). Also see: Taylor v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 337 So.2d 773 (1976) cert. quashed, Ala., 337 So.2d 776. Appellant strongly asserts the defense of self-defense in this case. Apparently in an attempt to strengthen the appellant's claim of self-d......
-
Smith v. State
...argues that Smith is not entitled to raise this issue on appeal. In Taylor v. State, 337 So.2d 773, 775 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. quashed, 337 So.2d 776 (1976) this court wrote: "We hold that once the court has ruled on a motion to suppress, supported by competent evidence as to the validity vel......