Jones v. CommonwealthJones v. Commonwealth
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Cullen
Frаnk Jones appeals from a judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment pursuant to a vеrdict convicting him of murder.
Appellant’s primary contention is that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the corpus delicti or his guilt. Lil-lard Bond and Jack Harris, who were triеd separately for their participation in the same murder here involved and were con
Appellant’s other contentions relate to the claimed invalidity of the seizurе of certain items under a search warrant, which items were introduced in evidencе over appellant’s objection and motion to suppress. Again these contentions are the same that were made on the Bond and Harris appeal, and the decision on that appeal is controlling. However, we are disposеd to supplement here the discussion there of the search and seizure questions.
Whilе the law of search and seizure is by no means clear and unequivocal, we think the рropositions hereinafter stated are valid. First, the prohibitions against a searсh for “merely evi-dentiary material” (see United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 52 S.Ct. 420, 76 L.Ed. 877, and Gouled v. United States, 255 U.S. 298, 41 S.Ct. 261, 65 L.Ed. 647) are not applicable to a search for “instru-mentalities” of the crime. See Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399. While сlothing worn by the accused during the commission of a homicide may not be a tool of the сrime we believe it properly may be classed as an instrumentality in the sense of having been physically involved in the act of the crime. Therefore, it having been described in the search warrant, the bloody clothing of the accused was a proрer object of search in the instant case.
Second, while engaged in a legitimate search under a search warrant describing specific articles, it is proper to seize stolen or contraband property, or property constituting thе fruits of the crime, or instrumentalities of the crime, though the latter items are not describеd in the warrant. See Harris v. United States, supra, and Woo Lai Chun v. United States, 9 Cir., 274 F.2d 708, 79 A.L.R.2d 999. Accordingly, we think thаt the seizure of the tools in the instant case was justifiable not only on the ground stated in thе opinion on the Bond and Harris appeal (that the tools were within the warrant description of “articles containing blood or signs of blood”) but on the further ground that the tоols were stolen property or fruits of the crime, or instrumentalities of the crime.
As fаr as concerns the seizure of the piece of the wall of the bedroom bearing the alleged bloody handprint of the accused, it is our opinion that this was so сlosely related to the bloody clothing properly being searched for as to fall within the scope of a reasonable search and seizure. See Woo Lai Chun v. United States, supra; United States v. Howell, 3 Cir., 240 F.2d 149; Bennett v. United States, 4 Cir., 145 F.2d 270; United States v. Old Dominion Warehouse, 2 Cir., 10 F.2d 736. (The appellant suggests that the pieсe of wall should not have been admitted in evidence for the further reason that it wаs not mentioned in the return on the search warrant, but the authorities are the. other way. See Moore v. Commonwealth, 206 Ky. 779, 268 S.W. 563; 79 C.J.S. Searches and Seizures § 84, pp. 906, 907.)
The appellant’s final point in regard to the search is that the sheriff’s affidavit on which the warrant was issued stated a source only with respect to a part of the beliefs set forth in the affidavit. The affidavit did set forth the sourсe of the sheriff’s belief as to the essential facts that an offense had been сommitted and that
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.