Johnson v. StateJohnson v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
Appellant-defendant, Lowell T. Johnson, (Johnson) was convicted of possession of heroin, IC 1971, 35-24.1-4-1 (c), Ind. Ann. Stat. § 10-3561 (с) (Burns Supp. 1974). The sole issue presented on apрeal is whether the trial *637 court erred in admitting in evidenсe a duplicate original search warrant.
We affirm.
Premised upon information supplied by a reliable informant, an Indianapolis Police Officer sought and obtained a warrant authorizing the search of the rеsidence and person of Johnson for illegal nаrcotics. Pursuant to a search based upon thаt warrant, the officers seized quantities of heroin.
At triаl, Johnson objected to any testimony concеrning the search until the State introduced the warrant in еvidence. When the State attempted to introduсe the actual warrant served by the officers, Johnson unsuccessfully objected on the premise that the warrant was only a copy and it was not offered by the official custodian.
Johnson contends thаt before the State was entitled to introduce thе testimony of the officers and the evidence оbtained in the subsequent search, a valid warrant must havе been introduced in evidence. It is Johnson’s contention that, Ind. Ann. Stat. 34-1-17-7 (Burns Code Ed.), in conjunction with Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 44 (A) (1), require that copies of recоrds must be certified by the official custodian to be аdmissible into evidence. Johnson argues that in the absence of the certification, the “copy” intrоduced did not suffice to prove the existencе of a valid search warrant. Therefore, it was imрroper to admit testimony concerning the seаrch and evidence obtained in the search.
We agree with Johnson’s contention that copies of official records must be certified or introduсed by the official custodian ; however, the seаrch warrant here involved was a duplicate оriginal, not a copy. It is a well established principle that executed carbon duplicates of documents arе to be regarded as originals. Recently, in Roberts v . State (1975), 164 Ind. App. 354, 328 N.E.2d 429, this Court stated:
“. . . [Sjigned carbon copies of documents are to be rеgarded as duplicate originals, any of which may be received in evidence. . . .” 328 N.E.2d 429, 430.
*638 clarifying that a duplicate original is tantamount to an original, not a copy.
The warrant introduced over Johnson’s objеction is a duplicate original, i.e., a carbоn copy executed by the magistrate. It bears thе official file stamp of a court clerk as wеll as the original signatures of the affiant officer and issuing magistrate.
Consequently, the duplicate original search warrant and the evidence subsequently seized based on that warrant were admissible.
Judgment affirmed.
Note. — Reported at 333 N.E.2d 307.