recognizing that “[i]f sufficient untainted evidence is present in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause, the warrant is valid”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that “[i]f sufficient untainted evidence is present in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause, the warrant is valid”
- concluding that it was not reversible error for the trial court to admit a show-up identification that took place “several hours” after the crime
- “after excising tainted information from a supporting affidavit, ‘if sufficient untainted evidence was presented in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause, the warrant was nevertheless valid’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Douglas, J.,
concurring in judgment only.
{¶ 143} I respectfully concur only in the judgment. Crim.R. 24(F), both before and after- amendment, required that the alternate jurors should have been discharged when the actual sworn jury retired to deliberate. The rule was not followed and this, in and of itself, was error. Given the clear dictates of the rule, nothing more needs to be said.
Moyer, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.