People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 12 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6227 |
| Citation | 168 Cal.App.2d 624,336 P.2d 245 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Arthur Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Umann & Marks, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In a jury trial upon an information charging him with selling heroin and offering to sell marijuana, Arthur Lee Williams was convicted of the former offense and was sentenced to state prison. He appeals from the judgment.
It is not contended on the appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Williams admitted selling the contraband to a state narcotics inspector. His defense was that he was entrapped into committing the offense by one Altee Maney, an informant acting under the inspector's direction. Appellant caused Maney to be served with a subpoena to attend the trial; Maney did not appear; a bench warrant was issued; appellant obtained two postponements of the trial date in order to locate Maney; September 11, 1957, the matter was again called for trial; appellant sought a further postponement to locate Maney as the latter's whereabouts were unknown; the court denied his motion. The contentions on the appeal are that Williams should have been granted another continuance and that the court erred in excluding from the evidence a tape-recorded statement allegedly made by Maney one month after the sale of the heroin. We have concluded that the contentions are not sustainable and that the appeal is without merit.
On April 25, 1957, Inspectors Lennon and Ojeda of the State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement arrived in San Luis Obispoto conduct an undercover investigation of narcotics activities. The officers were introduced to Altee Maney by a district attorney's investigator who told them that Maney was an informer; they knew Maney as 'Butch' and did not learn his true name until it was disclosed at appellant's preliminary hearing.
The following evening, Inspector Ojeda went with Maney to the Morocco Club, a bar frequented by members of the Negro race. Maney was to indicate the patrons who were engaged in the traffic of narcotics. While the inspector was sitting at a table, appellant approached and introduced himself. The next night, April 27th, Ojeda returned to the premises. He drove onto the parking lot just as a car containing Williams and Maney was leaving; the two men hailed Ojeda, who parked and walked over to their car. After a short conversation Williams asked the inspector if he wanted to buy some narcotics; Ojeda replied that he did. The two men drove away, promising to return later in the evening. Ojeda entered the establishment. Several hours later, he saw Williams and Maney standing at the bar. Appellant motioned to Ojeda to join them. Ojeda then arranged to buy two bindles of heroin from Williams for $15; Maney did not participate in the negotiations. The inspector gave the money to appellant, who left the premises and returned in a few minutes. Williams led Ojeda to the men's room and handed him two bindles containing a substance that was proved to be heroin. The inspector asked Williams if he could obtain any marijuana and the latter replied that he thought he could obtain some marijuana cigarettes.
On April 29th, Inspector Ojeda, Williams and Maney drove to Santa Maria in search of narcotics; their efforts were unsuccessful. On May 10th, Ojeda met appellant at the Morocco Club and gave him $5 to buy marijuana; appellant left, promising to return with the narcotics, but he did not do so.
Inspectors Lennon and Ojeda testified that they did not furnish any narcotics to Maney and that as far as they knew Maney did not furnish any narcotics to appellant.
Williams testified in his own defense that he had known Altee Maney for seven or eight years. He saw Ojeda in Maney's company at the Morocco Club on April 26th but was not introduced to him. At the club the following evening, Maney told appellant that he needed money and wished to sell some narcotics but he did not want Ojeda to know...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pratt, In re, Cr. 37534
...a material witness for the defense is unavailable at trial. (People v. Wade, 118 Cal. 672, 673 (50 P. 841); People v. Williams, 168 Cal.App.2d 624, 626-627 (336 P.2d 245); see People v. Collins, 195 Cal. 325, 333 (233 P. 97).) It does not appear that the statements were unavailable because ......
-
People v. Parham
...a material witness for the defense is unavailable at trial. (People v. Wade, 118 Cal. 672, 673, 50 P. 841; People v. Williams, 168 Cal.App.2d 624, 626-627, 339 P.2d 245; see People v. Collins, 195 Cal. 325, 333, 233 P. 97.) It does not appear that the statements were unavailable because of ......
-
People v. Jetson
...prior continuances permit serious doubt whether the additional time requested would have yielded meaningful evidence"]; People v. Williams (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 624, 627 ["In the absence of an affirmative showing as to [a witness's] whereabouts and that his testimony could have been obtaine......
-
People v. Overton
...rests in the sound discretion of the court and will be upheld on appeal, absent an abuse of such discretion. People v. Williams, 168 Cal.App.2d 624, 627, 336 P.2d 245; People v. Markos, 146 Cal.App.2d 82, 86, 303 P.2d Appellant's basic objections to the probation report are that it containe......