Flodstrom, In re
| Decision Date | 14 December 1954 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3091 |
| Citation | 134 Cal.App.2d 871,277 P.2d 101 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re Shirley Ann FLOODSTROM on Habeas Corpus. |
Byron J. Snow, Steven P. Gazzera, Redwood City, Sidney L. Berlin, Redwood City, of counsel, for petitioner.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Atty. Gen., N. J. Menard, Dist. Atty., of Santa Clara County, San Jose, for respondent.
Petitioner, Shirley Ann Flodstrom, seeks dicharge from custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus issued out of this court on the ground that she is being held to answer for the crime of murder without a showing of reasonable and probable cause. Petitioner alleges that she was arrested on October 12, 1954 and a complaint was filed in the Municipal Court for the San Jose-Alviso Judicial District, County of Santa Clara, charging her with murder. A preliminary examination followed in the Municipal Court on October 22, 1954, after which petitioner was held to answer to the Superior Court. On October 29, 1954 an information was filed in the Superior Court charging her with a violation of Penal Code, § 187. On November 5, 1954 at petitioner's arraignment her attorney moved to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code, § 995, paragraph 2. (Defendant committed without reasonable or probable cause.) This motion was denied on November 12, 1954 by the Superior Court Judge. No prior application has been made for a writ of habeas corpus.
Attached to the petition as Exhibit A is the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing on October 22, 1954. The events which culminated in the detention of petitioner are presented in this testimony. It appears that the only witness to testify at the hearing was a detective in the Police Department. He testified on direct examination that he went to the home of petitioner on October 6, 1954 and there viewed the dead body of David Flodstrom, six months old, the son of petitioner. He further testified that the petitioner then told him that she found the sleeve of the pajama top crammed in the baby's mouth. According to the testimony, on October 7, 1954 this police officer again went to petitioner's home accompanied by the Deputy Coroner. Both of these officers questioned petitioner at that time. The police officer further testified that petitioner was brought to the police station on October 12, 1954 where she confessed to the crime charged and signed a written statement to that effect. The police officer testified that petitioner told him that she crammed the pajama sleeve in the baby's mouth with her fingers because she was angry with her husband and wished to get even with him.
On cross-examination the police officer testified that when he arrived at the petitioner's house on October 6 he found the deceased baby lying on his back in his crib; that there were no indications or signs of violence on the child visible to him; that he did not see the pajama sleeve in the baby's mouth; that one sleeve of the pajama top was damp and had two small blood spots on it; that he called the Coroner.
At the end of the preliminary hearing petitioner's attorney moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the State had not established the corpus delicti. This motion was denied.
Petitioner contends that she is held without probable cause in that there was no proper showing of the corpus delicti at the preliminary hearing. More specifically it is asserted that aside from the extra-judicial statements of the accused which ought not to have been admitted at the preliminary hearing there was no showing that the death was accomplished by means of a criminal agency. Petitioner's position that such extra-judicial statements cannot be considered in the first instance to determine if the corpus delicti has been shown prima facie is supported by authority. In Hall v. Superior Court, 1953, 120 Cal.App.2d 844, 262 P.2d 351, it was held that if the only evidence of a homicide produced at a preliminary examination comprises extra-judicial statements of the accused, he is held to answer without reasonable or probable cause. In that case the autopsy surgeon testified that the death was caused by a ruptured liver and that in his opinion the rupture was cuased by a blow of some sort. In spite of this testimony the court felt that it was not shown that the rupture was due to any unlawful or criminal act. Thus is could be argued that the facts of the Hall case go further than those in the case at hand in indicating a criminal agency and yet the court felt that this was not a sufficient showing. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Manson
...(In re Carmen (1957) 48 Cal.2d 851, 854, 313 P.2d 817; In re Joiner (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 250--252, 4 Cal.Rptr. 667; In re Flodstrom (1954) 134 Cal.App.2d 871, 277 P.2d 101, reinstated (1955) 45 Cal.2d 307, 288 P.2d 859, and Pen.Code, § Although the trial court advised Atkins' counsel that ......
-
Rogers v. Superior Court of Alameda County
...773, 775, 163 P.2d 498, 499. An information that is based entirely on hearsay or incompetent evidence is unauthorized, In re Flodstrom, Cal.App., 277 P.2d 101 (Hearing Granted, see 288 P.2d 859); Hall v. Superior Court, 120 Cal.App.2d 844, 850, 262 P.2d 351; Dong Haw v. Superior Court, 81 C......
-
Guerin v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County
...is noted that since the passage of section 999a in 1949, two cases have been decided which ignore that code section. In In re Flodstrom, 134 Cal.App.2d 871, 277 P.2d 101 the accused proceeded by way of habeas corpus. The report does not show whether the petition was filed before or after th......
-
People v. Minkowski
...is all that is necessary. (People v. Hudson (1934), 139 Cal.App. 543, 544, 34 P.2d 741; People v. Cullen, supra; In re Flodstrom (1954), 134 Cal.App.2d 871, 875, 277 P.2d 101.) The corpus delicti may be proved by circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. (People......