stating that in determining the circumstances proved, “we defer, consistent with our standard of review, to the jury, acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the state” (quotation omitted)
How later courts described this case
- stating that in determining the circumstances proved, “we defer, consistent with our standard of review, to the jury, acceptance of the proof of these circumstances and rejection of evidence in the record that conflicted with the circumstances proved by the state” (quotation omitted)
- holding that a warrant application established probable cause supporting the warrant’s issuance, as alleged omissions were not material to the probable-cause determination; in other words, including the “omissions would have no impact on the probable cause determination”
- stating that a Franks challenge requires the defendant to show that a search-warrant application “includes intentional or reckless misrepresentations of fact material to the findings of probable cause”
- concluding that the search warrant application’s reference to “possible evidence of foot traffic” was appropriately qualified by the word “possible”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ANDERSON, PAUL H., Justice
(concurring).
I join in the concurrence of Justice Page.