Bach v. State

The defendant contends that the court committed prejudicial error upon the trial of said action—(1) In refusing to quash the search warrant;(2) In admitting improper and incompetent evidence obtained directly by virtue of the search warrant;(3) In admitting the court records of the conviction of the two inmates; and(4) In admitting the testimony of one John Morris as to conversations with Peggy O’Neill, the female inmate, not in the presence of the defendant.

*146The errors assigned may be considered and determined by discussing three questions.

1. Did the court err to the prejudice of the…