People v. Crisp

California Supreme Court

People v. Crisp

455 P.2d 105, 71 Cal. 2d 1235, 78 Cal. Rptr. 169, 1969 Cal. LEXIS 317

CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

DecidedJune 18, 1969

DocketCrim. No. 13126

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 455 P.2d 105 (People v. Crisp) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Crisp, 455 P.2d 105, 71 Cal. 2d 1235, 78 Cal. Rptr. 169, 1969 Cal. LEXIS 317 (Cal. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

TRAYNOR, C. J.

In May 1962 a court sitting without a jury found defendant guilty of possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500). Before sentencing, the court found that “defendaiit is addicted or by reason of repeated use of narcotics, is in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics,” adjourned the criminal proceedings, and committed defendant for treatment pursuant to Penal Code section 6541.¹ In November 1966 the court reinstated the criminal proceedings and sentenced defendant to imprisonment for the term prescribed by law. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that his conviction must be reversed because- a confession obtained in violation of the rules subsequently announced in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [12 L.Ed.2d 977, 84 S.Ct. 1758] and People v. Dorado [1236]*1236(1965) 62 Cal.2d 338 [42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361] was introduced at his trial. Since we have held that those rules apply to all eases not final before Escobedo was decided on June 22, 1964 (People v. Rollins (1967) 65 Cal.2d 681, 691 [56 Cal.Rptr. 293, 423 P.2d 221]; In re Lopez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 368, 372 [32 Cal.Rptr. 188, 398 P.2d 380]; In re Shipp (1965) 62 Cal.2d 547, 549 [43 Cal.Rptr. 3, 399 P.2d 571]), defendant concludes that the judgment must be reversed. The Attorney General contends that cases such as this one, which was tried before Escobedo but in which entry of judgment was postponed owing to a commitment to the narcotics rehabilitation facility, should be treated as an exception to the rule of the Lopez case. We answered this contention adversely.to the Attorney General in People v. Kellum, Crim. 13271, ante, page 352 [78 Cal.Rptr. 501, 455 P.2d 429]

The judgment is reserved.

McCbmb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., Burke, J., and Sullivan, J. concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TRAYNOR, C. J.

In May 1962 a court sitting without a jury found defendant guilty of possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500). Before sentencing, the court found that “defendaiit is addicted or by reason of repeated use of narcotics, is in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics,” adjourned the criminal proceedings, and committed defendant for treatment pursuant to Penal Code section 6541.¹ In November 1966 the court reinstated the criminal proceedings and sentenced defendant to imprisonment for the term prescribed by law. Defendant appeals.

Defendant contends that his conviction must be reversed because- a confession obtained in violation of the rules subsequently announced in Escobedo v. Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478 [12 L.Ed.2d 977, 84 S.Ct. 1758] and People v. Dorado [1236]*1236(1965) 62 Cal.2d 338 [42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361] was introduced at his trial. Since we have held that those rules apply to all eases not final before Escobedo was decided on June 22, 1964 (People v. Rollins (1967) 65 Cal.2d 681, 691 [56 Cal.Rptr. 293, 423 P.2d 221]; In re Lopez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 368, 372 [32 Cal.Rptr. 188, 398 P.2d 380]; In re Shipp (1965) 62 Cal.2d 547, 549 [43 Cal.Rptr. 3, 399 P.2d 571]), defendant concludes that the judgment must be reversed. The Attorney General contends that cases such as this one, which was tried before Escobedo but in which entry of judgment was postponed owing to a commitment to the narcotics rehabilitation facility, should be treated as an exception to the rule of the Lopez case. We answered this contention adversely.to the Attorney General in People v. Kellum, Crim. 13271, ante, page 352 [78 Cal.Rptr. 501, 455 P.2d 429]

The judgment is reserved.

McCbmb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., Burke, J., and Sullivan, J. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

455 P.2d 105, 71 Cal. 2d 1235, 78 Cal. Rptr. 169, 1969 Cal. LEXIS 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crisp-cal-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack