Rollins v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 11, 1963 No. Civ. 27708Published

Before: Herndon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a writ of prohibition because the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing failed to establish reasonable or probable cause to connect him to the alleged burglaries or conspiracy.

Issues

Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish reasonable or probable cause to hold the petitioner to answer for the charged burglaries and conspiracy.
Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated by the trial court's refusal to dismiss the information based on a theory that constitutional protections do not apply to groups or 'gangs.'

Disposition. Writ issued

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since petitioner was not shown to have been in conscious possession of any of the stolen items, and since his answers to the questions of the police were not shown to be false, there is no basis for an inference sufficient to hold him to answer”

“If individuals could be deprived of their constitutional rights because the prosecution determines to file against them in groups as “co-conspirators,” these rights would indeed be no more than words without substance.”

[221]

HERNDON, J.

Petitioner Rollins seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from proceeding against him following the denial of his motion to set aside an information charging him with the commission of a felony. Appellant’s motion was made on the ground that he had been committed without reasonable or probable cause. (Pen. Code, §§ 995, 999a.)

Counts II to VII of the information charge petitioner and several codefendants with committing the crime of burglary in various locations in the Los Angeles area on dates ranging from March 16, 1962, to February 21, 1963. Count I charges the several defendants with the crime of conspiracy to commit the crimes of burglary, receiving stolen property and forgery.

At the preliminary hearing, the People presented the testimony of numerous persons to the effect that they, or the companies by whom they were employed, had been the victims of burglaries or shopliftings. These witnesses identified various exhibits as merchandise which had been stolen from them.

The testimony of police officers was then offered which indicated that, with one exception, all these exhibits had been recovered either from the apartment occupied by codefendants Leslie and Vera Coleman in an apartment building owned by them, or at their place of business which was located in another part of the city.

The one exception was an exhibit consisting of approximately 200 blank money orders drawn against the Travelers Express Company which allegedly had been stolen in a burglary some 11 months earlier. These were found in a closed, but unlocked, heater closet on an exterior wall of the apartment building.

Objection was made to the introduction of these exhibits on the ground that they were obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure. We need not determine the validity of this objection, however, for none of said exhibits was found in petitioner’s actual or constructive possession; hence, they did not tend to connect petitioner with the specific burglaries alleged. The fact that petitioner occupied an apartment in the building (and various hearsay statements

Rollins v. Superior Court

AI Brief

HERNDON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief