Harrison v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Harrison v. State

264 Ind. 708

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 22, 1976

DocketNo. 973A194

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 264 Ind. 708 (Harrison v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harrison v. State, 264 Ind. 708 (Ind. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Dissenting opinion on order denying petition for transfer to the Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dissenting Opinion On Petition To Transfer

DeBruler, J.

In appellant’s first appeal in 1972, we did not review the ruling of the trial court denying his motion to suppress drugs on Fourth Amendment grounds because, “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.” Harrison v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 359, 362, 281 N.E.2d 98, 99. Appellant established in his post-conviction hearing, that his counsel had no strategy or reason in mind in failing to make the necessary in-trial objection; and it necessarily follows from this showing that appellant cannot be deemed to have knowingly waived his Fourth Amendment claim when his counsel made no objection. Henry v. Mississippi, (1964) 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408. The lawyer who defended him at trial testified that he was young and inexperienced and was ignorant of the requirement of the law that one must object at trial in order to preserve for appeal the issue of the admissibility of the drugs. I think that we should grant appellant a review of the ruling of the trial court on his motion to suppress. In order to achieve this end, I would vote to grant transfer and take the case over.

Note. — Reported at 344 N.E.2d 293.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dissenting opinion on order denying petition for transfer to the Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dissenting Opinion On Petition To Transfer

DeBruler, J.

In appellant’s first appeal in 1972, we did not review the ruling of the trial court denying his motion to suppress drugs on Fourth Amendment grounds because, “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.” Harrison v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 359, 362, 281 N.E.2d 98, 99. Appellant established in his post-conviction hearing, that his counsel had no strategy or reason in mind in failing to make the necessary in-trial objection; and it necessarily follows from this showing that appellant cannot be deemed to have knowingly waived his Fourth Amendment claim when his counsel made no objection. Henry v. Mississippi, (1964) 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408. The lawyer who defended him at trial testified that he was young and inexperienced and was ignorant of the requirement of the law that one must object at trial in order to preserve for appeal the issue of the admissibility of the drugs. I think that we should grant appellant a review of the ruling of the trial court on his motion to suppress. In order to achieve this end, I would vote to grant transfer and take the case over.

Note. — Reported at 344 N.E.2d 293.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 Ind. 708, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harrison-v-state-ind-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack