People v. Ditson

In People v. Ditson (1962) 57 Cal.2d 415, the defendants argued that, having excluded an involuntary confession, the trial court should also have excluded evidence about police officers' discovery of the victim's body parts, since this evidence was the "fruit" of the confession. ( Id. at p. 441.) The court observed this argument presents a question of fact and faulted the defendants for failing to raise a proper objection on this ground in the trial court: "If defendants intended to claim that the confession was involuntary and that the recovery of the head and arms was an inadmissible 'fruit' of the confession it was their clear duty to state the objection and its grounds so that, if necessary, a further foundation could be laid and the matter argued. Whether the discovery of the head and arms was a product of the confession presents a question of fact entirely separate and distinct from any issue as to admissibility of the confession." ( Id. at p. 442.)