People v. Wren

California Court of Appeal Sep 20, 1922 No. Crim. No. 1049.Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that evidence obtained through a search and seizure, even if conducted unlawfully, is admissible in a criminal trial, and that a motion for the return of such property is a separate proceeding not reviewable on appeal from the judgment of conviction.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for the return of property seized from the defendant.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence property seized from the defendant's person following an arrest without a warrant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the motion for the return of the property is an entirely separate proceeding and no part of the cause from which the appeal is taken.”

“The fact that the property was taken from the person of the defendant rather than from his premises can have no bearing upon its competency as evidence to be produced on the trial.”

“where competent evidence is produced on a trial the courts will not stop to inquire or investigate the source from whence it comes or the means by which it was obtained.”

NOURSE, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of the crime of having in his possession a quantity of morphine in violation of the State Poison Act (Stats. 1907, p. 124). Though the offense is a misdemeanor in the first instance, the defendant was informed against and convicted in this case of a felony because of a prior conviction of the same offense. In his application on appeal numerous assignments of error are made, but all of these have been abandoned except the point that the court erred in denying his motion for a return of property which had been taken from his possession and used in evidence against him at the trial and the point that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the property so taken from the person of the defendant. The motion for the return of the property was made at 9:45 A. M. of the day of the trial and prior to the calling of the case for trial. Assuming that the motion was made at a reasonable time, the point is not to be considered on this appeal, as the motion for the return of the property is an entirely separate proceeding and no part of the cause from which the appeal is taken.

(People

Mayen,

188 Cal. 237 [205 Pac. 435].)

As to the second point appellant concedes that if the issue raised on this appeal comes within the ruling of

People

Mayen,

188 Cal. 237 [205 Pac. 435], there is no merit in the appeal. The only material difference between the issue raised on this appeal and that considered in the Mayen case is that in the present case the property was taken from the defendant’s person by the arresting officer and while in custody following an arrest upon suspicion, while in the Mayen ease the property was taken from the premises of the defendant under a void search-w'arrant.

The facts of this case are that the defendant was arrested on the public streets of San Francisco by a member of the Police Department on suspicion that he, the defendant, was a drug addict, the arresting officer having had him under observation for several days prior to the arrest. He was immediately taken to the southern police station and without

[118]

People v. Wren

AI Brief

NOURSE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief