People v. Martin

Opinion

THE COURT.

The People appeal from an order dismissing the information on the ground that respondents were committed without reasonable or probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 995.) Respondents were jointly charged with possession of marijuana. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11530.)

It is axiomatic that in considering the propriety of a motion to set aside an information pursuant to; section 995 of the Penal Code the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the committing magistrate. And if there is some evidence in support of the information, the court will not inquire into its sufficiency.

(Perry

v.

Superior Court

(1962) 57 Cal.2d 276, 283 [19 Cal.Rptr. 1, 368 P.2d 529];

People

v.

Bradley

(1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 499, 502 [81 Cal.Rptr. 55].) Although the magistrate, in reaching his decision, may weigh the evidence, resolve conflicts, and give or withhold credence to witnesses, such a balancing of the evidence is not within the powers of a tribunal reviewing the magistrate’s order.

(Perry

v.

Superior Court, supra; People

v.

Bradley, supra.)

Every legitimate inference that may be drawn from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the information.

(Rideout

v.

Superior Court

(1967) 67 Cal.2d 471, 474 [62 Cal.Rptr. 581, 432 P.2d 197].) Where evidence before the committing magistrate on the issue of the legality of a search and seizure is susceptible of conflicting inferences or consists only of the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the information should not be set aside on the ground that essential evidence was illegally obtained if, resolving all reasonable inferences in favor of the prosecution, there is any substantial evidence to support a contrary conclusion.