People v. Guido

California Court of Appeal Aug 8, 1928 No. Docket No. 1476.Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that evidence obtained without a search warrant is admissible in criminal proceedings and that the legislature may amend statutes previously adopted by referendum. It further held that indirect evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for possession of a still intended for beverage purposes.

Issues

Whether evidence obtained by officers without a search warrant is admissible at trial.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for a directed verdict regarding the intended use of distilled liquor.
Whether the 1927 statute amending the Wright Act is unconstitutional because it was not adopted by referendum.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The doctrine of that case has never been adopted in this state. The law in this state is settled by the ruling in People v. Mayen”

“there was an abundance of indirect evidence from which the jury might infer or presume that the liquor was intended for beverage purposes.”

“an act adopted by the people under the referendum provisions of the constitution may be amended by the legislature at any subsequent sessions thereof.”

STURTEVANT, J.

The district attorney filed an information against the defendant, charging him with having violated the provisions of chapter 277, Statutes of 1927— the unlawful possession of a still intended for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. The defendant was tried before the trial court sitting with a jury. The jury returned a verdict against the defendant and from a judgment entered thereon the defendant has appealed.

In his brief the defendant calls to our attention that his premises were searched by the peace officers and that they took from his possession numerous parts of a still and a quantity of distilled liquor and that the officers did not have a search-warrant authorizing them to do or perform any of said acts. Before the trial the defendant made a motion to suppress, but the motion was denied. He cites and relies on the doctrine as stated in

Boyd

United States,

116 U. S. 616 [29 L. Ed. 746, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes], and in his brief he has made an exhaustive presentation of the doctrine stated in that case. However, his reasoning is not convincing. The doctrine of that case has never been adopted in this state. The law in this state is settled by the ruling in

People

Mayen,

188 Cal. 237 [24 A. L. R. 1383, 205 Pac. 435], and the cases there cited. In the Mayen case the court said it would not attempt to review the ruling on such a motion because said ruling was a collateral matter to the appeal before it— an appeal from a judgment of conviction of grand larceny. It is patent that the ruling complained of is, in the last analysis, almost wholly immaterial. The gravamen of the defendant’s complaint is that the articles taken by an unlawful means were offered in evidence against him. But if his motion to restore had been granted, nevertheless under the ruling of the Mayen ease he could, and doubtlessly would have been, confronted by the testimony of the witnesses who saw the articles, and, in all probability, by photographs of

[480]

People v. Guido

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief