Harrison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

80 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We do not pass on the question as to whether or not the motion to suppress was properly overruled for even if we assume for the sake of argument that the motion to suppress was erroneously overruled, that question was waived by appellant when counsel for the appellant expressly stated that he had no objection to the admission of the questioned objects into evidence. This Court has repeatedly stated that failure to object at trial constitutes a waiver as to the admissibility of evidence, and that no issue is preserved for appeal. Langley v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 199 , 267 N.E.2d 538 , 25 Ind. Dec. 118 ; Smith v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 603 , 271 N.E.2d 133 , 26 Ind. Dec. 275 ; Thomas v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 309 , 268 N.E.2d 609 , 25 Ind. Dec. 321 . An Indiana Appellate Court decision dealing with this precise question stated that if on trial a defendant does not object to evidence obtained by an illegal search warrant he cannot complain to the action of the trial court in overruling his motion to suppress. Worrell v. State (1930), 91 Ind. App. 259 , 171 N.E. 208 . Other jurisdictions have taken this same approach. See 50 A.L.R.2d 53 .1, 591. In Maryland the court was faced with an almost identical factual situation as the case at bar. There counsel not only failed to object to the introduction of evidence which he had previously moved to suppress, but also stated that he had no objections. The Court of Appeals of Maryland stated: ‘We hold that appellant’s express waiver of ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 156 Ind. App. 593 - Crawford v. State

2. ““Appellant was under parole supervision from December 23, 1968, until his arrest on the instant charge. On December 3, 1969, a parole warrant was issued for appellant’s arrest for the stated reason that he had absconded supervision and could not be found by his parole officer. Authorities learned the whereabouts of appellant on August 3, 1970. The next day officers arrived at appellant’s place of lodging to arrest him on the parole violation warrant. At the time the officers took the appellant into custody they noticed a ‘cooker’ sitting in plain view on top of a dresser. A fur ther search revealed a weapon, marijuana, heroin and a syringe.” 281 N.E.2d at 98 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 Ind. App. 602 - Harrison v. State

3. ““. . . if on trial a defendant does not object to evidence obtained by an illegal search warrant he cannot complain of the action of the trial court in overruling his motion to suppress.” (citing authorities including 50 A.L.R.2d 531 , 591)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Zion v. State