89 Ind. App. 288 - Shorter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““On the trial, appellant objected to the testimony of the city marshal and the patrolman as to matters observed by them after the arrest was made, and while appellant was in their custody, it being the contention that the arrest having been made by an officer not in uniform, in violation of the statute, the facts learned as a result of the arrest were incompetent evidence against appellant. It is a well-recognized general rule that evidence which is otherwise competent is not rendered inadmissible by reason of the means by which it was obtained. Adams v. New York (1903), 192 U. S. 585 , 24 Sup. Ct. 372, 48 L. Ed. 575 ; Segurola v. United States (1927), 275 U. S. 106 , 48 Sup. Ct. 77, 72 L. Ed. 186 . To this general rule, there is recognized, in some jurisdictions, including Indiana, an exception in the case of evidence procured by an illegal search warrant. State v. Wallace (1927), 199 Ind. 317 , 157 N. E. 657 , and cases there cited. But even in those jurisdictions in which the courts recognize the exception, the inhibition is against ' using the evidence on account of the method of procuring it, rather than against the evidence itself, and the exception is made to apply only in those instances where, to receive the evidence would constitute a violation of the constitutional guaranties against unreasonable search and seizure and compelling a party to be a witness against himself. In the case at bar, there is no claim that there was an unlawful search. No evidence was introdu”

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