People v. McFarren
| Decision Date | 21 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3416 |
| Citation | 155 Cal.App.2d 383,317 P.2d 998 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert Lee McFARREN, Defendant and Respondent. |
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., William M. Bennett, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Edward T. Mancuso, Public Defender of City and County of San Francisco, Abraham Dresow, Chief Deputy Public Defender, San Francisco, for respondent.
The people appeal from an order dismissing the information. Respondent was charged with possession and transportation of marijuana. The motion to dismiss (Pen.Code, § 995) was based wholly upon the ground that the marijuana introduced at the preliminary examination was found in a search of respondent's automobile made without reasonable or probable cause.
No objection of any kind was made to the introduction of this marijuana in evidence. Thus respondent waived his right to assert that the narcotic was inadmissible because illegally obtained (Robison v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.2d 186, 316 P.2d 1, and cases cited therein). In fairness to the trial court, we point out that this decisive issue was not raised on argument of the motion. It is not even mentioned in appellant's brief in this court.
Upon trial, the objection may well be made, and we feel required to comment upon the merits. Respondent went through a stop sign at 4 a. m., and was stopped by an officer in a patrol car. When one officer checked the registration slip, he saw a pistol under the front seat of respondent's car. Respondent was then arrested for violation of Penal Code, Section 12025, the glove compartment of his car was searched, and marijuana was found. If in fact the weapon was concealed, so as to be within the proscription of Section 12025, but was in fact seen by the officer without a search and solely in the course of his checking of the registration slip, we consider that a search of the glove compartment for further weapons was justified. If such facts were found, they would distinguish People v. Molarius, 146 Cal.App.2d 129, 303 P.2d 350.
The order dismissing the information is reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nollins v. Superior Court (People)
...Court (1957) 49 Cal.2d 186, 187, 316 P.2d 1; People v. Schultz (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 110, 113, 69 Cal.Rptr. 293; People v. McFarren (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 383, 384, 317 P.2d 998.) Defendant raises additional claims in his petition for writ of prohibition which were not argued in the motion t......
-
Montez v. Superior Court (People)
...Court (1957) 49 Cal.2d 186, 187, 316 P.2d 1; People v. Schultz (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 110, 113, 69 Cal.Rptr. 293; People v. McFarren (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 383, 384, 317 P.2d 998.) Defendant raises additional contentions in his petition for writ of prohibition which were not argued in the dis......
-
People v. Linden
...in further search, not only for evidentiary matter, but out of ordinary common sense for their own protection. People v. McFarren, 155 Cal.App.2d 383, 384, 317 P.2d 998. The court's ruling on the admission of this evidence was No Showing Of Prejudice From Lack Of Attorney Shortly after defe......
-
People v. Schultz
...an objection is urged at the preliminary hearing it may not be asserted on a motion under Penal Code Section 995. (People v. McFarren, 155 Cal.App.2d 383, 317 P.2d 998.) In the case at bench, the broad assertion by counsel for defense that 'nothing * * * after the arrest is permissible unle......