Thinnes v. State

Full title: THINNES v. STATE OF INDIANA

Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: Jul 6, 1929

167 N.E. 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 1929)

167 N.E. 345

Opinion

No. 13,577.

Filed July 6, 1929.

CRIMINAL LAW — Objection to Evidence — Obtained by Search Warrant — Made When Evidence Offered at Trial — Properly Overruled. — Where objection to evidence obtained by means of a search warrant was first made when the evidence was offered at the trial of the accused, the objection was properly overruled where the defendant had knowledge of all the facts before the beginning of the trial and made no motion to suppress the evidence prior to the trial.

From Ripley Circuit Court; John R. Carney, Judge.

George P. Thinnes was convicted of manufacturing intoxicating liquor in violation of Acts 1923, ch. 23, p. 70, and he appealed. Affirmed. By the court in banc.

Wycoff Wycoff, for appellant.

U.S. Lesh, Attorney-General, and O.S. Boling, for the State.

LOCKYEAR, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting appellant of the manufacture of intoxicating liquor under the Prohibition Law as amended, Acts 1913 p. 70. The overruling of this motion for a new trial is assigned as sole error and relied on for reversal.

The motion for a new trial is on the grounds that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that the court erred in admitting in evidence, over objection of the defendant, the affidavit for search warrant, the sheriff's return on the search warrant, and in admitting in evidence the information obtained by means of the search warrant.

If the evidence in this case was properly admitted in evidence, there is ample evidence to support the verdict of the jury.

The appellant filed no motion to suppress the search warrant, the return of the sheriff thereon, or the evidence obtained by means of the search warrant before the beginning of the trial, although the record shows he had full knowledge of all the facts before the beginning of the trial, and shows no reason for not filing such motion, but raised the question for the first time on objection to the evidence obtained by the sheriff by means of the search warrant. This court has decided adversely to appellant's contention in the case of Hantz v. State (1929), 166 N.E. (Ind. App.) 439, and, on authority of that case, the judgment herein is affirmed.