500 So. 2d 1199 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1986
Robert McCrary was indicted and convicted for trafficking in cannabis. Sentence was six years' imprisonment and a $25,000 fine.
The search warrant only states in effect that Tommy Holt had presented proof to the District Judge that he had probable cause to believe that there was marijuana at the defendant's residence. The search warrant does not mention any informant. Deputy Holt, the affiant, testified at trial. Before the search warrant was introduced into evidence before the jury, Deputy Holt testified, without objection, that he had obtained a search warrant from Judge Haislip to search the defendant's residence.
The general rule is that a search warrant or an affidavit is not admissible on the issue of the accused's guilt or innocence. In Satterwhite v. State,
"The question as to the validity of a search is a legal question for the trial court to determine on evidence heard in camera. . . . Once the State proved the legality of the search and seizure before the trial judge, it was not necessary to present that same predicate to the jury." Sheffield v. State,
The improper admission of a search warrant and even the affidavit upon which it issued may constitute harmless error in the absence of prejudice or injury to the accused. 24B C.J.S.Criminal Law § 1915(16) at p. 112-114 (1962). See alsoMcClellan, 452 So.2d at 911.
In this case, we find that the admission of the search warrant, which contained no statement of any informant, if error, was only harmless error.
"The search warrant . . . should not have been received in evidence, but under the evidence in this case we do not believe that that error should be considered by us to assume the dignity of reversible error. We do not feel that we would be warranted in reversing this case for the reasons assigned, especially considering that there was unobjected to evidence in the record to fully prove the People's case, and that the objected to evidence was just cumulative." People v. Pankey,
349 Ill. App. 303 ,307 ,110 N.E.2d 683 ,685 (1953).
See also State v. Johnson,
Even if the affidavit does not satisfy the veracity prong ofAguilar-Spinelli, the affidavit satisfies the totality-of-the-circumstances test of Illinois v. Gates,
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All Judges concur.