 |
|
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Hauschel11/20/1975 opriety in the two affidavits not being physically attached.
In Colorado, courts have traditionally followed standards of common sense and reasonableness when reviewing the sufficiency of an affidavit in support of a search warrant. As stated in People v. Ragulsky, 184 Colo. 86, 518 P.2d 286:
"The standard for determining whether a search warrant complies with constitutional requirements is one of practical accuracy rather than technical nicety."
Although in the instant case it is not clear whether the two affidavits were physically attached, the issuing magistrate properly determined that the affidavit in support of the search warrant adequately incorporated the other affidavit, sworn before the same magistrate on the same day, so as to establish probable cause to search the defendant's truck.
We have considered defendant's other contentions of error and find them to be groundless.
Judgment affirmed.
Disposition
Affirmed.
JUDGE COYTE dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would order a new trial on the sole ground that the district attorney's conduct in this case was improper.
Knowing in advance that he was to appear as an essential witness for the prosecution, he should have withdrawn totally from the prosecution of
the case in favor of a replacement. It is impossible to conceive that the jury, in weighing his testimony, could ignore the prestige of the office of district attorney and his role at trial relating to the discovery and condition of a weapon introduced as an exhibit at the trial. Where the evidence is conflicting and the case hinges on identification of the alleged assailant, testimony by the district attorney while he serves in his official capacity, throws "his own weight into the scales against the defendant." People v. Spencer, 182 Colo. 189, 512 P.2d 260, citing United States v. Pepe, 247 F.2d 838 (2d Cir. 1957). See ABA, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function § 5.8(b) (1971).
|