 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Walden8/5/1988
t times the questioner and the witness used the phrase "took him back" to her car. The word "took" has some implication of an involuntary action on the part of the defendant leading to an inference that arrest was intended from the start. However, the trooper specifically stated she would not have made an arrest in Indiana, but had simply hoped the defendant would voluntarily return to Ohio. Thus, there is a conflict in the evidence as to this element of intent and it was the prerogative of the finder of fact to resolve this conflict.
This the trial court did, stating that the arrest was valid. There was sufficient evidence before the court to justify this determination.
The assignment of error is therefore not well-taken.
We must note that appellant's argument goes beyond and, in effect, broadens the assignment of error as phrased, which is limited to an arrest in Indiana. The trial court, however, was bound by the terms of the motion before it. That motion sought to suppress because "Walden was initially and illegally arrested in the state of Indiana." The trial court determined there was no arrest in Indiana and, hence, this portion of the motion directed to the power to arrest was not well-taken. The motion further sought to "dismiss all charges * * * for the reason that there was no probable cause for Officer Foley to initiate a stop and arrest of this defendant in the State of Indiana." Since we have determined there was no arrest in Indiana, the issue is, as limited by its own phraseology, not presented by the facts before the court. In short, no issue as to the lack of probable cause for an arrest in Ohio was raised by the motion before the trial court.
Such being the case, the assignment of error in its totality is not well-taken.
Judgment affirmed.
MILLER and EVANS, JJ., concur.
|