Defendant appealed his conviction under Cal. Penal Code §177 in the Municipal Court, Los Angeles Judicial District, Los Angeles County (California). Defendant had been cited by a Department of Weights and Measures inspector for violations of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 12107 and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 4, § 3015.4.1. The trial judge held that § 3015.4.1 required compliance by any person who used a scale and thus was applicable to defendant.
Defendant appealed from his conviction under Cal. Penal Code § 177. A Department of Weights and Measures inspector had inspected the commercial scale at the delicatessen where defendant was employed and, upon finding that it registered above true weight, cited defendant for violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 12107 and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 4, § 3015.4.1, which imposed a duty to maintain commercial scales. Violation Termination letter sample of § 12107 constituted a misdemeanor under § 177. Defendant used the scale in his work behind the counter but claimed that it was not his job to maintain it. There was no proof to the contrary. The trial judge held that § 3015.4.1 required compliance by any person who used a scale and thus found that § 3015.4.1 applied to defendant. The court reversed the judgment of defendant's conviction and remanded the case for dismissal on grounds that a showing that defendant used the scale, without more, was insufficient to establish a duty on his part to maintain the scale in balance under § 3015.4.1, as such duty was on the employer and thus the evidence, which showed that defendant was no more than a mere user of the scale, did not support his conviction.
Defendant's conviction for a misdemeanor violation of a commercial scales maintenance regulation was reversed and the case was remanded for dismissal because the employer had the duty to maintain scales in balance under the regulation with which defendant was charged. Because the evidence showed that he was a mere employee-user of a scale, the regulation did not apply to him and thus the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.
Defendant challenged a decision of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District (California), which granted the state's request for writ of mandamus to vacate respondent trial court's order suppressing evidence, although rejecting the state's challenge to the trial court's jurisdiction to relitigate the suppression issues, in defendant's retrial following reversal of his original conviction based on his counsel's conflict of interest.
Defendant's original conviction had been reversed based on ineffective assistance of counsel, because of a conflict of interest. During the retrial, respondent trial court held a second suppression hearing under Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5, and suppressed evidence obtained under the first search warrant. Petitioner state filed a request for writ of mandate, alleging that respondent had no jurisdiction to relitigate the suppression issues and that the warrant was supported by probable cause. The court of appeals determined that respondent had erred in suppressing the evidence, although respondent did have jurisdiction to consider the issue. The supreme court affirmed, adopting a portion of the court of appeals' decision and granting the writ. The court held that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was based supplied enough facts to determine that probable cause existed for the scope of the search, and that the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence obtained. The court ordered the trial court to vacate its order suppressing the evidence.
The court adopted a portion of the decision of the court of appeals, rejecting petitioner state's challenge to the trial court's jurisdiction to relitigate the issues of suppression, granting petitioner's writ of mandate, and vacating the trial court's suppression of the evidence at issue, because the affidavit supporting the first search warrant supplied sufficient probable cause to justify the extent of the search.