Yonchar v. Superior Court In and For Los Angeles County
| Citation | 14 Cal.Rptr. 93,193 Cal.App.2d 135 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 16 June 1961 |
| Parties | Jack YONCHAR, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Respondent. Civ. 25520. |
John E. Glover, Los Angeles, for petitioner.
William B. McKesson, Dist. Atty. of Los Angeles County, Harry Wood and Harry B. Sondheim, Deputy Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for real party in interest.
Pursuant to the provisions of section 999a of the Penal Code, petitioner seeks writ of prohibition to prevent the respondent court from proceeding with the trial on four out of five counts of an information filed against him. The basis of his contention as to each count is that all of the evidence relating to those counts was procured by the People through an unreasonable search and seizure.
By count I of the information, petitioner is charged with performing an abortion upon one Snow, by count II he was charged with abortion upon one LeMonds, by count III he was charged with abortion upon one Alberti, by count IV an abortion upon one Zeiger and by count V with an abortion upon one Roos.
Pursuant to section 995 of the Penal Code, petitioner moved the respondent court to dismiss the first four counts of the indictment. He made no attack upon the fifth count. His motions having been denied he filed his petition here. We have reached the conclusion that a peremptory writ of prohibition must issue.
Following are the indisputed facts: One Galindo, a police officer in the city of Los Angeles, assigned to investigations of abortions, was advised by one Beckett that he had taken one Roos (the abortee named in the fifth count) to petitioner; that he paid petitioner $350 and that petitioner had performed an abortion upon Roos who afterwards became ill and was hospitalized. He was likewise so advised by Roos. Beckett and Roos also advised Galindo that petitioner's wife had made some notations containing the names of both Beckett and Roos on a small piece of paper two or three or four inches 'in some shape or another.' The officer also found in the police records information indicating that an anonymous phone call had been received by the police stating that the anonymous caller's girl friend had been aborted by petitioner and that that girl friend had been in turn referred by another girl who had been aborted by him. Galindo with other officers then went to petitioner's office where they placed petitioner under arrest charging him with abortion.
They asked petitioner where he kept his records regarding any patients that he had treated. Petitioner said that his files were contained in a separate office immediately in front of the consultation office and that he had no objection if Galindo (the arresting officer who testified at the preliminary) had a conversation with his accountant in the file section of the office building. He also said that Beckett had been harassing him about some money he wanted returned to him and stated that he would go to the police in the event petitioner did not give him $500; that Beckett was dissatisfied because of the treatment that had been given to his girl friend Roos. He stated that he had treated her for hemorrhaging by giving her a shot of prostigmin. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elder v. Board of Medical Examiners
...492, 346 P.2d 433.) The instant case differs from People v. Schaumloffel (1959) 53 Cal.2d 96, 346 P.2d 393 and Yonchar v. Superior Court (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 135, 14 Cal.Rptr. 93. In each of those cases it was recognized that it was proper to take evidence connected with the offense for wh......
-
People v. Rogers
...charge on which the accused is arrested. (See People v. Gallup (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 922, 61 Cal.Rptr. 709; Yonchar v. Superior Court (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 135, 137, 14 Cal.Rptr. 93.) The Attorney General urges that the search and seizure were lawful for three reasons: (1) Knowledge of the ......
-
People v. Robinson
...eyes to evidence of other crimes. (People v. Roberts (1956) 47 Cal.2d 374, 303 [62 Cal.2d 895] P.2d 721; cf. Yonchar v. Superior Court (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 135, 14 Cal.Rptr. 93.) Preston v. United States (1964) 376 U.S. 364, 84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L.Ed.2d 777, and People v. Burke (1964) 61 Cal.2......
-
People v. Gallup
...turns up evidence of a crime other than the one for which the arrest is made is often a knotty one. (See also Yonchar v. Superior Court, 193 Cal.App.2d 135, 14 Cal.Rptr. 93.) It cannot be solved by describing the action of the police as a 'rummaging through' or 'ransacking' of the premises.......
-
Table of cases
...People v. (1998) 63 Cal. App. 4th 652, 73 Cal. Rptr. 2d 815, §11:10 Esbensen v. Userware Internat., Inc. (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 631, 14 Cal. Rptr. 93, §15:10 Escamilla v. California Insurance Guarantee Association (1983) 150 Cal. App. 3d 53, 197 Cal. Rptr. 463, §2:20 Escobar, People v. (20......
-
Parol evidence
...inconsistent with the contract. Code Civ. Proc. §1856(a), (h); Esbensen v. Userware Internat., Inc. (1992) 11 Cal. App. 4th 631, 637, 14 Cal. Rptr. 93. An agreement need not expressly state that it is intended as an integration. Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal. App. 4t......