Stinchfield v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Crabtree v. State

    479 N.E.2d 70 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding there was sufficient evidence the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed paraphernalia in part because the defendant "was in close personal proximity to contraband which was in plain view"

    Evidence seized in a search must be excluded if the probable cause for that search is tainted by prior unlawful conduct. Morris v. State (1980) 272 Ind. 467, 399 N.E.2d 740; Hall v. State (1976) Ind., 346 N.E.2d 584; Pirtle v. State (1975) Ind., 323 N.E.2d 634; Clark v. State (1980) 4th Dist., Ind. App., 401 N.E.2d 773; Stinchfield v. State (1977) 1st Dist., Ind. App., 367 N.E.2d 1150. Evidence of this nature is admissible only if it was obtained by means independent of the prior tainted evidence or information. See Myers v. State (1983) Ind., 454 N.E.2d 861.

  2. Watt v. State

    412 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 34 times
    Supporting both propositions

    Watt and Senteney do contend the affidavit is otherwise defective because it is tainted by illegality — the statements made therein were the product of an initial unlawful seizure. Watt and Senteney cast their lot with Stinchfield v. State (1977), Ind. App., 367 N.E.2d 1150. This case and Stinchfield are distinguishable.

  3. Kirk v. State

    974 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind. App. 2012)   Cited 11 times
    Holding the evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit dealing in cocaine

    Having found constitutional error, we must address whether that error was prejudicial to the defendant. Stinchfield v. State, 174 Ind.App. 423, 432, 367 N.E.2d 1150, 1155 (1977). “Only where we can state beyond a reasonable doubt that the improperly admitted evidence did not contribute to the defendant's conviction is the error harmless.”

  4. Smith v. State

    713 N.E.2d 338 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that when a license plate check reveals a mismatched plate, the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe theft has occurred

    Having found constitutional error, our inquiry turns to whether that error was prejudicial to the defendant. Stinchfield v. State, 174 Ind. App. 423, 432, 367 N.E.2d 1150, 1155 (1977). A Fourth Amendment error such as one which occurred in the instant case is subject to a constitutional harmless error analysis.

  5. Maynard v. State

    508 N.E.2d 1346 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Distinguishing Hewell on the grounds that the evidence seized “which was not listed in warrant ... was not readily apparent to be contraband....”

    The mere fact that they were unaware of Johanningsmeir's true status as an agent does not, in itself, vitiate that consent. Id. at 207, 87 S.Ct. at 425, 17 L.Ed.2d at 314; State ex rel. Medical Licensing Board v. Stetina (1985), Ind. App., 477 N.E.2d 322, 329, trans. denied; Stinchfield v. State (1977), 174 Ind. App. 423, 431, 367 N.E.2d 1150, 1155. On November 30, 1984, a search warrant, reflecting Johanningsmeir's observations, was obtained to search the Flanagan Lane compound.

  6. State ex Rel. Medical Lic. Bd. v. Stetina

    477 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)   Cited 15 times
    Holding court erred in dismissing State’s petition for an injunction where uncontradicted evidence established defendant was both engaged in the practice of medicine and unlicensed

    The mere fact that Stetina was unaware of the agents' true identities does not, in itself, vitiate that consent. Lewis v. United States (1966), 385 U.S. 206, 207, 87 S.Ct. 424, 425, 17 L.Ed.2d 312, 314; Stinchfield v. State (1977), 174 Ind. App. 423, 431, 367 N.E.2d 1150, 1156. Stetina also challenges the validity of the search warrant obtained by the State for the search of her home.

  7. Snyder v. State

    460 N.E.2d 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 19 times
    Recognizing the importance of "link[ing] the accused with the substance in question"

    Finally, in the review of a suppression hearing, we will not weigh the evidence, nor adjudge the credibility of witnesses. Stinchfield v. State, (1977) 174 Ind. App. 423, 367 N.E.2d 1150. We are of the opinion that the above authorities make the question of probable cause and the attack upon the truth of the statements comprising probable cause, a question of fact to be determined by the trial court.