Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN JUSTIN HENDERSON, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1972-01-28
Citations: 8 Or. App. 252
Docket Number: No. 71 1944
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN JUSTIN HENDERSON, Appellant.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley and Thornton, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 8
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
Argued January 18,
affirmed January 28,
petition for rehearing denied February 23,
petition for review denied March 31, 1972
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. JOHN JUSTIN HENDERSON, Appellant.
(No. 71 1944)
493 P2d 75
Bryan T. Hodges, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. On the briefs were Linklater and Hodges, Eugene.
Joseph F. Ceniceros, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the canse for respondent. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and John W. Osbnrn, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley and Thornton, Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted of possession of marihuana. ORS 474.020. The marihuana introduced at trial was seized pursuant to a search warrant. It consisted of marihuana plants taken from the backyard of defendant's residence and marihuana and a pipe taken from within his residence building.
On appeal he argues that the affidavit and the warrant were insufficient to support the search of or seizure from either the backyard or the house. It is not necessary to reach this question.
A police officer observed, from where he had a right to be, plants which he identified as marihuana growing in the defendant's backyard. He had the right to seize them forthwith. In so far as these plants were concerned the search warrant was surplusage. We need not consider the adequacy of the affidavit or warrant in connection with the items seized from within the residence because the plants alone were sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Affirmed.