Opinion
No. 13,730.
Filed April 19, 1929.
CRIMINAL LAW — Search Warrant — When Assumed to be Valid. — Where the record on appeal does not contain a copy of the affidavit for a search warrant, or the search warrant, or any evidence pertaining thereto, the appellate tribunal will assume that the search warrant was legal in all respects.
From Gibson Circuit Court; Claude A. Smith, Judge.
Carl Lauten was convicted of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor, and he appealed. Affirmed. By the court in banc.
Hovey C. Kirk, for appellant.
James M. Ogden, Attorney-General, Merl M. Wall and E. Burke Walker, Deputies Attorneys-General, for the State.
Prosecution by the State against Carl Lauten by affidavit in one count, based on § 2717 Burns 1926, charging appellant with the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor.
There was a trial by jury which resulted in a verdict of guilty against appellant, assessing his punishment at a fine in the sum of $100 and imprisonment on the Indiana State Farm for ninety days. From the judgment on this verdict, this appeal, appellant presenting that the court committed reversible error in overruling his verified motion to quash the search warrant herein, the return of the officer thereon; and all evidence obtained by virtue of said search warrant. But the record does not contain a copy of the affidavit for a search warrant, nor the search warrant, nor is there any evidence pertaining thereto of any kind or character, in the record. We must therefore assume that the search warrant was legal in all respects. Smith v. State (1926), 198 Ind. 156, 152 N.E. 803.
So far as appears by the record, the court did not err in overruling appellant's motion to quash the affidavit, the search warrant, and the evidence obtained by the search thereunder.
Judgment affirmed.