Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

People v. Pedercine

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 24, 1967No. Crim. 4452PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPierce, P. J.

The appeal is from a judgment following a conviction for two counts of violation of Business and Professions Code, section 4390 1 (passing fictitious prescriptions).

There are three contentions: (1) Unlawful search and seizure; (2) spurious methods by the police in the use of photographs to bolster testimonial identification of defendant; and (3) insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Contention (1) is insubstantial. Contention (2) is correct, but we will explain why prejudicial error does not always flow from the police practice complained of and why it did not here. Contention (3) is…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Gilbert v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  5. People v. CahanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Pueblo v. Gómez InceraSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1969
  2. People v. IrvinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  3. People v. PijalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
  4. People v. SluttsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  5. People v. WilliamsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API