People v. Finston

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Thomas

    43 Cal.App.3d 862 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 37 times
    In Thomas, the defendant testified on his own behalf, then argued that he was not adequately advised by the trial court of his privilege against self-incrimination.

    The classifications established therein are apparently considered by the Legislature to have merit in contemporary society. In People v. Finston, 214 Cal.App.2d 54 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 165], the court was presented with a similar argument regarding the classifications in Penal Code section 487, subdivision 1. The court stated that "`[t]he authority and the duty to ascertain the facts which will justify classified legislation must of necessity rest with the legislature, in the first instance, to whom has been given the power to legislate and not to the courts and the decision of the legislature in that behalf is ordinarily conclusive upon the courts.

  2. People v. Dale

    239 Cal.App.2d 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 3 times

    ( People v. Diamondstein, 42 Cal.App. 490, 491 [ 183 P. 679]. Cf. also, People v. Finston, 214 Cal.App.2d 54, 61 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 165]; People v. Olf, 195 Cal.App.2d 97, 107 [ 15 Cal.Rptr. 390].)

  3. People v. Ahmad

    232 Cal.App.2d 314 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 1 times

    The points raised are not likely to recur in the same manner in the event of retrial. [2] Appellant's assertion that Penal Code section 487 subdivision 1 is unconstitutional is fully disposed of by the holding in People v. Finston, 214 Cal.App.2d 54 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 165]. The judgment is reversed.