holding that when the specific facts used by the court to determine the existence of probable cause were uncontested, the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction concerning other factsCwhich were contestedCthat did not defeat the finding of probable cause
How later courts described this case
- holding that when the specific facts used by the court to determine the existence of probable cause were uncontested, the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction concerning other factsCwhich were contestedCthat did not defeat the finding of probable cause
- holding that, when specific facts used by court to determine existence of probable cause were uncontested, defendant was not entitled to jury instruction concerning other facts--which were contested--that did not defeat finding of probable cause
- concluding that officer conducted valid search incident to arrest where officer learned 7 from warrant check of an outstanding warrant, even though warrant turned out to be defective
- when the specific facts used by the court to determine the existence of probable cause were uncontested, the defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction concerning other facts— which were contested-that did not defeat the finding of probable cause
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MORRISON, Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the affirmance of this conviction, but conclude that reliance upon Wallace v. State, supra, in which I dissented, is unnecessary. The officer here learned that there was an outstanding warrant authorizing appellant’s arrest prior to taking him into custody. He was also armed with sufficient probable cause to authorize appellant’s arrest without a warrant and reliance upon a traffic violation is not necessary for our disposition of this case.