holding that because wife had joint access to the parties' bedroom, she could properly consent to the search of all areas therein, including the jewelry box over which her husband claimed exclusive access and control, in view of finding that wife generally had access to all areas of bedroom, including jewelry box
How later courts described this case
- holding that because wife had joint access to the parties' bedroom, she could properly consent to the search of all areas therein, including the jewelry box over which her husband claimed exclusive access and control, in view of finding that wife generally had access to all areas of bedroom, including jewelry box
- providing that the absence of a defense witness did not entitled the defendant to relief where there was no showing of reasonable diligence in procuring the witness at trial and no request for a continuance was made
- addressing the instruction that “the nonproduction of a witness by a party able to produce him gives rise to a presumption that the testimony of that witness would be unfavorable to the party which could have produced him”
- “decision of the trial court will be sustained if a valid ground exists to support it”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OPINION CONCURRING IN RESULT
Givan, C.J.
I concur in result. The majority opinion under XII, after describing the finding of the shotgun, concludes “These circumstances could not give rise to probable cause to conduct a search, . . .” I disagree with this conclusion. I would hold that there was probable cause to conduct a search. I do agree that a search in fact was not made.
Hunter, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported at 375 N.E.2d 1042 .