Flodstrom, In re, Cr. 3091
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | KAUFMAN; DOOLING |
| Citation | 134 Cal.App.2d 871,277 P.2d 101 |
| Parties | In re Shirley Ann FLOODSTROM on Habeas Corpus. |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1954 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3091 |
Page 101
Hearing Denied Dec. 29, 1954.
Hearing Granted Jan. 12, 1955.
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.
[134 Cal.App.2d 872] KAUFMAN, Justice.
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
Page 102
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 [134 Cal.App.2d 873] him; that he did not see the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Manson, Cr. 22239
...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 it w......
-
Rogers v. Superior Court of Alameda County
...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 Cal.App.2d ......
-
Guerin v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County
...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 the f......
-
People v. Minkowski, Cr. 4066
...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 v.......