Shaffer v. Field, 72-1707.
| Decision Date | 27 August 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1707.,72-1707. |
| Citation | 484 F.2d 1196 |
| Parties | Robert E. SHAFFER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold V. FIELD, Superintendent of California Men's Colony, San Luis Obispo, California, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Michael L. Davidson of Davidson, Davidson & Phillips, Foster City, Cal., for petitioner-appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Russell Iungerich, Rodney Lilyquist, Jr., Dep. Attys. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent-appellee.
Before MERRILL, BROWNING, and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner was convicted of a violation of California Penal Code § 187. After exhausting state remedies he applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The district court denied the writ. See Shaffer v. Field, 339 F.Supp. 997 (C.D.Cal. 1972).
Considering the issues in the order presented in the district court's opinion, we hold as follows:
1. Admission of the spontaneous statements of the dying victim did not violate petitioner's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. United States v. Adams, 446 F.2d 681, 683 (9th Cir. 1971). The trustworthiness of spontaneous statements is established on grounds distinct from the general credibility of the declarant. The declarant's unavailability did not deprive the jury of a basis for evaluating the truth of the declarations.
2. The warrantless entry of petitioner's locker at the sheriff substation, without his consent, did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Since the circumstances under which the lockers were held and used by sheriff's employees demonstrate that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in their use, there was no "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
3. The "Baumgartner" instruction does not necessarily violate due process of law, United States v. Moore, 429 F.2d 1305 (9th Cir. 1970), and we find no violation on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Farmer
...Orduno (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 738, 748, 145 Cal.Rptr. 806; McLaughlin v. Vinzant (1st Cir.1975) 522 F.2d 448, 450-451; Shaffer v. Field (9th Cir.1973) 484 F.2d 1196, 1197.) Defendant does not dispute that spontaneous statements, as a general proposition, are reliable. Rather, he asserts that ......
-
State v. Mee
...for reliability without regard to the testing of the statement for reliability through cross-examination. See, e. g., Shaffer v. Field, 484 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 1973) (spontaneous statements exception). The Supreme Court expressed the belief in Roberts that well founded hearsay exceptions ge......
-
State v. Anaya
...of spontaneous statements is established on grounds distinct from the general credibility of the declarant. Shaffer v. Field, 484 F.2d 1196, 1197 (9th Cir.1973); State v. Yee, 121 Ariz. 398, 402, 590 P.2d 937, 941 (App.1978), rev. den., (1979) (excited utterance). There is no mechanical tes......
- Williams v. Dann Marine Towing, LC
-
Warrantless Search in the Law Enforcement Workplace
...United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928). People v. Duvall, 428 N.W2d 746 (Mich. App. 1988).Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Shaffer v. Field, 484 F.2d 1196 (9th Cir. 1973).Shields v. Burge, 874 F.2d 1201 (7th Cir. 1989).State v. Francisco, 790 S.W2d 543 (Tenn. Cr. App. 1989).State v. Nelson, 434......