Willennar v. State, 28591
| Decision Date | 29 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 28591,28591 |
| Citation | 91 N.E.2d 178,228 Ind. 248 |
| Parties | WILLENNAR v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Howard S. Grimm, Auburn, Winslow Van Horne, Auburn, of counsel, for appellant.
J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., Merl M. Wall, Deputy Atty. Gen., Walter O. Lewis, Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
A jury found the appellant guilty of operating a motor vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The offense was charged by affidavit.
Appellant first insists that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the results of a test made on the person of appellant by means of a drunkometer shortly after his arrest for the offense charged in the affidavit. Upon this motion evidence was heard and the court prior to the beginning of the trial overruled the same. The appellant made no objection when the result of this test was introduced in evidence at the trial of this cause.
It is argued by the appellant that the evidence heard on this motion showed that at the time the appellant submitted to the test he was being denied the right of counsel, the right to prompt bail and the opportunity to prepare his defense; and finally that he was intimidated by threats of force to produce incriminating evidence against himself. All of these objections are made on the assumption that the evidence heard on this motion was all one way and that the test was obtained through coercion. This is by no means true. We have carefully examined this evidence and we conclude there was ample evidence from which the trial court could reasonably infer that the appellant took the test voluntarily and that he was not denied the right to counsel or coerced in any way. Therefore, whether or not the state may compel an arrested person to submit to the drunkometer test is not for us to decide in this case. For a discussion of this question see Opinions of the Attorney General 1940, p. 210. If there is any constitutional provision upon which appellant might have relied such provision affords no protection if the provision was waived by him. Spitler v. State 1943, 221 Ind. 107, 46 N.E.2d 591.
Appellant also contends that this evidence aside from the manner in which it was obtained was 'incompetent and highly prejudicial to the appellant'. As we heretofore noted, no objection was made to this evidence as the same was introduced at the trial. By this failure to object the appellant waived all questions as to the relevancy and the materiality of this evidence. The only question raised by the motion to suppress was as to whether or not this evidence was lawfully obtained.
Finally it is insisted by the appellant that at the time the test was made he was being illegally detained. There is no contention that the appellant was unlawfully arrested. He does claim, however, that it was the duty of the police to immediately and without demand take him before an examining magistrate as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirkpatrick v. King
... ... elections to be held in 1950, which was in accordance with the position and contention of the State Election Board. Appellant sued in the trial court for a declaration of his rights, asserting that ... ...
-
Notter v. Beasley
...Cir. Ct. et al. 1956, 236 Ind. 69, 138 N.E.2d 875; Shoemaker v. Dowd, Warden, 1953, 232 Ind. 602, 115 N.E.2d 443; Willennar v. State, 1950, 228 Ind. 248, 91 N.E.2d 178; Spitler v. State, 1943, 221 Ind. 107, 46 N.E.2d 591; Ogle v. State, 1920, 193 Ind. 187, 127 N.E. Whether the execution of ......
-
Alldredge v. State
...consented to the test, it was admissible. Ray v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 495, 120 N.E.2d 176, 121 N.E.2d 732; Willennar v. State, 1950, 228 Ind. 248, 91 N.E.2d 178; Spitler v. State, 1943, 221 Ind. 107, 46 N.E.2d The United States Supreme Court has held the use of a stomach pump against the w......
-
People v. Kovacik
...v. State, 235 S. W. 2d 173 [Tex.]; Lombness v. State, 243 P. 2d 389 [Okla.]; Omohundro v. County of Arlington, 194 Va. 773; Willennar v. State, 91 N. E. 2d 178 [Ind.]; Guenther v. State, 221 S. W. 2d 780 As was stated in Toms v. State (supra), at pages 821-822: "This court is of the opinion......