affirming denial of motion to suppress because, “[t]o rule otherwise, merely because the warrant specified a ‘pocket knife’ whereas ‘a kitchen knife’ was seized would be hypertechnical and contrary to the common-sense approach mandated by [the United States Supreme Court]”
How later courts described this case
- affirming denial of motion to suppress because, “[t]o rule otherwise, merely because the warrant specified a ‘pocket knife’ whereas ‘a kitchen knife’ was seized would be hypertechnical and contrary to the common-sense approach mandated by [the United States Supreme Court]”
- finding valid warrant which specified “pocket knife” but officers seized “kitchen knife”
- dissenting opinion of this writer, joined by Mr. Justice ROBERTS
- dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Roberts and of the writer
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Pomeroy,
in his dissent, has focused on
the denial of equal protection and the basic weakness in the rule which the majority here again reiterates. I believe we should not let this case pass without correction.
Secondly, it is of course unarguable that voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense in an indictment for murder. The jury should be so instructed. Furthermore, the jury should be advised that a verdict of voluntary manslaughter is one of the verdicts returnable under a murder indictment. The failure to do so obviously creates many potentials for incomplete, unfair, and unequal considerations in the deliberations of the jury and the verdict and treatment accorded the accused.