TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. McFarren

The PEOPLE, Appellant, v. ROBERT LEE McFARREN, Respondent

People v. McFarren, 317 P.2d 998 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Court of Appeal · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 21, 1957
Docket
No. Crim. 3416
Judges
Draper
Citations
317 P.2d 998155 Cal. App. 2d 3831957 Cal. App. LEXIS 1298

Opinion — Draper

DRAPER, J.

The People appeal from an order dismissing the information. Respondent was charged with possession and transportation of marijuana. The motion to dismiss (Pen. Code, § 995) was based wholly upon the ground that the marijuana introduced at the preliminary examination was found in a search of respondent’s automobile made without reasonable or probable cause.

No objection of any kind was made to the introduction *384 of this marijuana in evidence. Thus respondent waived his right to assert that the narcotic was inadmissible because illegally obtained (Robison v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.2d 186 [ 316 P.2d 1 ], and eases cited therein). In fairness to the trial court, we point out that this decisive issue was not raised on argument of the motion. It is not even mentioned in appellant’s brief in this court.

Upon trial, the objection may well be made, and we feel required to comment upon the merits. Respondent went through a stop sign at 4 a. m., and was stopped by an officer in a patrol car. When one officer checked the registration slip, he saw a pistol under the front seat of respondent’s car. Respondent was then arrested for violation of Penal Code, section 12025, the glove compartment of his car was searched, and marijuana was found. If in fact the weapon was concealed, so as to be within the proscription of section 12025, but was in fact seen by the officer without a search and solely in the course of his checking of the registration slip, we consider that a search of the glove compartment for further weapons was justified. If such facts were found, they would distinguish People v. Molarius, 146 Cal.App.2d 129 [ 303 P.2d 350 ].

The order dismissing the information is reversed.

Kaufman, P. J., and Dooling, J., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1958: 11960: 11961: 11963: 11966: 11968: 11969: 11971: 11973: 11992: 119582026peak 1958 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mardis v. Superior Court218 Cal. App. 2d 70 (1963)
  2. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden v. William Eugene Porter361 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1966)
  3. People v. Spicer329 P.2d 917 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)
  4. People v. Schultz263 Cal. App. 2d 110 (1968)
  5. Montez v. Superior Court4 Cal. App. 4th 577 (1992)
  6. People v. May33 Cal. App. 3d 888 (1973)

Most recent

  1. Montez v. Superior Court4 Cal. App. 4th 577 (1992)
  2. People v. May33 Cal. App. 3d 888 (1973)
  3. People v. Dominguez21 Cal. App. 3d 881 (1971)
  4. People v. Tarkington273 Cal. App. 2d 466 (1969)
  5. People v. Schultz263 Cal. App. 2d 110 (1968)
  6. Lawrence E. Wilson, Warden v. William Eugene Porter361 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Robison v. Superior Court of the City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 316 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1957) 45
People v. Molarius (1956), 303 P.2d 350 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956) 26

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list