Robison v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | McCOMB; GIBSON; CARTER |
| Citation | 49 Cal.2d 186,316 P.2d 1 |
| Decision Date | 04 October 1957 |
| Parties | Lorenzo ROBISON, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, and the People of the State of California, Real Party in Interest, Respondents. S. F. 19798. |
Page 1
v.
The SUPERIOR COURT OF the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, and the People of the State of California, Real Party in Interest, Respondents.
Page 2
Gregory S. Stout, San Francisco, for petitioner.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Victor Griffith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.
[49 Cal.2d 187] McCOMB, Justice.
This is an application for a writ of prohibition to restrain the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco from trying defendant on the charge of violating section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code.
The record at the preliminary hearing disclosed that defendant was charged with violating section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (possession of dolophine, a narcotic).
Officer Rinken testified that on January 17, 1957, he went to 2945A Bush Street, San Francisco, where he and other officers arrested John Hall for violation of section 11557 of the Health and Safety Code (maintaining premises where narcotics are sold) and for possession and sale of narcotics, in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. The officer stated that there had been sales of narcotics from this apartment on at least two other occasions on the same date, that is, January 17, 1957.
After Hall was arrested, defendant came to the partment, knocked on the door, and was admitted by one of the officers. Officer Rinken asked him if he had anything on him. Defendant was thereupon searched by the officer, and in his left front jacket pocket there was found a paper-wrapped tablet that contained dolophine. This tablet was received in evidence without objection.
It is conceded that the officer did not have a warrant for the arrest of defendant or a search warrant permitting him to search defendant.
Questions: First. Did the committing magistrate properly consider the evidence that defendant had in his possession a narcotic at the time he was arrested, in view of the fact that the arresting officer did not have either (a) a warrant for defendant's arrest or (b) a warrant authorizing him to search defendant?
This question must be answered in the affirmative, and is governed by this rule: By failing to object at the preliminary hearing to the admission of the evidence that he had a narcotic in his possession, defendant waived his right to claim that the evidence was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montez v. Superior Court (People), No. B052892
...could not be raised for the first time in superior court in a dismissal motion pursuant to section 995. (Robison v. Superior 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, 31......
-
Nollins v. Superior Court (People), No. B052186
...appropriately for the first time in superior court in a dismissal motion pursuant to section 995. (Robison v. Superior 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......
-
People v. Hathcock, Cr. 13802
...settled principles he is precluded from raising the instant contention for the first time on appeal. (Robison v. Superior Court (1959) 49 Cal.2d 186, 187, 316 P.2d 1; People v. Rojas (1961) 55 Cal.2d 252, 260, 10 Cal.Rptr. 465, 358 P.2d b. Admission of color photographs of victims: Defendan......
-
Castro v. Superior Court
...may be guilty of the crime. (Jackson v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.2d 521, 42 Cal.Rptr. 838, 399 P.2d 374; Robinson v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.2d 186, 316 P.2d 1; Lorenson v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 49, 216 P.2d 859; Witkin, Cal.Crim.Proc., § 234, p. 218. See also, fn. 4, p. 8 of the lead opin......
-
People v. Hathcock, Cr. 13802
...settled principles he is precluded from raising the instant contention for the first time on appeal. (Robison v. Superior Court (1959) 49 Cal.2d 186, 187, 316 P.2d 1; People v. Rojas (1961) 55 Cal.2d 252, 260, 10 Cal.Rptr. 465, 358 P.2d b. Admission of color photographs of victims: Defendan......
-
Castro v. Superior Court
...may be guilty of the crime. (Jackson v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.2d 521, 42 Cal.Rptr. 838, 399 P.2d 374; Robinson v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.2d 186, 316 P.2d 1; Lorenson v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.2d 49, 216 P.2d 859; Witkin, Cal.Crim.Proc., § 234, p. 218. See also, fn. 4, p. 8 of the lead opin......
-
People v. Swayze, Cr. 4237
...objection. The failure to object at all waived the defect. (Perry v. McLaughlin, 212 Cal. 1, 6, 297 P. 554; Robison v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.2d 186, 187, 316 P.2d 1; People v. Prado, 190 Cal.App.2d 374, 378, 12 Cal.Rptr. 141.) Moreover, it is a well known maxim of jurisprudence that acquie......
-
People v. Amata, Cr. 7203
...v. Alvarado, 250 Cal.App.2d 584, 589, 58 Cal.Rptr. 822; People v. Hyde, 51 Cal.2d 152, 157, 331 P.2d 42; Robison v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.2d 186, 187, 316 P.2d 1.) Even though an objection had been raised upon other Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds (Evid.Code, § 353; People v. Flores, 68 ......