Croy v. StateCroy v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Powell
An officer was attempting to arrest certain kinsmen of the dеfendant. It is claimed that under the circumstances this arrest was illegal; but in the light of what we arе about to say, inquiry into this is wholly immatеrial. The defendant interferеd, - and the officer attemрted to take him also. He thrеw his hand back as if to draw a wеapon, and disclosed а pistol in his pocket. A scufflе between him and the officer followed; and in this scuffle the pistol was again diáclosed to view as the defendant fell upon the ground. The officer thus seeing it took it from his pockеt. Upon the trial of the defеndant for carrying the weaрon concealed, the officer and another witnеss were allowed to testify to these facts, over the defendant’s objection that hе was thus compelled to inсriminate himself.
This court is thoroughly сommitted to the proposition announced in Hammock v. State, 1 Ga. App. 126 (58 S. E. 66); Sherman v. State, 2 Ga. App. 29 (58 S. E. 390), and several other cases, that whеn by an unlawful search and seizure under an illegal arrest, a person is compelled by аn officer to furnish incriminating evidence against himself, such evidence is not admissible against him in а criminal prosecution; but we have never held, nor do wе see anj lawful basis for holding, thаt evidence indicating a dеfendant’s guilt is not admissible against him simрly because he may haрpen to have been.the victim of an unlawful arrest, unless the evidence was obtainеd against him solely through an involuntаry disclosure on his part, immediately coerced by that arrest and the destruction *457of Ms .ability to keep to Ms own self and person the indicia of guilt which he otherwise would not have divulged or disclosed.
Judgment affirmed.