People v. Alvidrez

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PETERS
• Citation: People v. Alvidrez, 158 Cal.App.2d 299, 322 P.2d 557 (Cal. App. 1958)
• Decision Date: 10 March 1958
• Docket Number: Cr. 3395
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph ALVIDREZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 557

322 P.2d 557

158 Cal.App.2d 299

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph ALVIDREZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 3395.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

March 10, 1958.

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1958.

Robert Stanton Rose, Frederick J. Whisman, San Francisco, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Victor Griffith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PETERS, Presiding Justice.

The defendant was charged with the sale of narcotics and with several priors. He admitted the priors and was found guilty of the crime charged. He appeals from the judgment.

Appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction. Legally, he could not do so. Various inspectors of the State Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement testified that on the day in question they searched an informant and found no narcotics or money upon his person; that they gave the informant $10 in bills, the serial numbers of which were recorded; that they then observed the informant enter and leave the premises occupied by defendant; that when the informer came out of the premises, he had a bindle of heroin; that defendant was arrested and he had in his possession the marked bills; that a search of his room disclosed five bindles of heroin and narcotic paraphernalia, and that two other persons were in the room. This evidence, of course, sustains the judgment.

The sole contention of appellant on appeal is that he was deprived of due process of law in not being informed of the name of the informer, and that such point can be raised for the first time on appeal, although no demand for such identification was made in the trial court, nor was there any objection to the failure of the prosecution to disclose the identity.

The case presents the typical informant-participant situation. There can be no doubt that, had proper demand been made for the identity of the informer, and had the request been refused, it would have been reversible error. People v. Lawrence, 149 Cal.App.2d 435, 308 P.2d 821; People v. Castiel, 153 Cal.App.2d 653, 315 P.2d 79. It is no longer open to question that in an informant-participant situation, upon demand, the defendant is entitled to be given the name of the informer. But here no such demand was made. It is a well settled rule of law that, with certain limited exceptions, 'It is a general rule of appellate review, early established and long adhered to, that questions not raised in the trial court will not be considered on appeal.' (3 Cal.Jur.2d 604, § 140, citing many cases.) One such exception to the general rule is that the appellate court will consider fundamental errors or gross irregularity where the error is of such a nature and so substantial that an objection would not have obviated it. (See cases collected 3 Cal.Jur.2d 605, § 141.) Another exception, really included in the one already stated, is that if a fundamental and well-established rule of evidence is reversed, the appellate courts will consider the admissibility of evidence although no objection was made, in those cases decided before the rule was reversed. In such cases objection would have been futile. People v. Kitchens, 46 Cal.2d 260, 294 P.2d 17. It is this rule that appellant seeks to invoke here. It is claimed that the Lawrence case, supra, which was decided March 26, 1957, ^* established a new rule of evidence, and that prior to that case it was generally recognized that the prosecution had the privilege to refuse to divulge the name of any informant, whether a participant or not. Appellant places his main reliance on People v. Kitchens, 46 Cal.2d 260, 294 P.2d 17. That case held that the Supreme Court would review appeals based on the admission of illegally secured evidence although no objection had been made in the trial court, where such cases had been tried prior to the decision in People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513. The basis of the court's ruling in the Kitchens case is disclosed by this quotation (46 Cal.2d 260, at page 262, 294 P.2d 17, at page 19): 'Although we adhere to the rule that ordinarily the admissibility of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a proper objection in the trial court, we conclude that it is not applicable to appeals based on the admission of illegally obtained evidence in cases that were tried before the Cahan decision. This practice was adopted by the federal courts following the decision of the United States Supreme Court in McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, holding confessions obtained during a period of illegal detention inadmissible even if voluntarily made. [Citing decisions.] A contrary holding would place an unreasonable burden on defendants to anticipate unforeseen changes in the law and encourage fruitless objections in other situations where defendants might hope that an established rule of evidence would be changed on appeal. Moreover, in view of the decisions of this court prior to People v. Cahan, supra, an objection would have been futile, and 'The law neither does nor requires idle acts.' Civ.Code, § 3532.'

This rule was sound. As early as 1909 in People v. Le Doux, 155 Cal. 535, 102 P. 517, and again in 1922 in People v. Mayen, 188 Cal. 237, 205 P. 435, 24 A.L.R. 1383, our Supreme Court had held that illegally secured evidence was admissible. That rule was followed by many appellate courts until April of 1955 when the Cahan case was decided. Prior to that date trial courts were bound by the prior decisions and were bound to rule that illegally secured evidence was admissible. Any objection to such evidence would have been futile. Therefore, when the Supreme Court reversed that rule, fairness, justice, equity and common sense required that the new rule be applied to all cases tried before April of 1955 even though no objection had been made.

But no such situation is here presented. The Lawrence case did not establish a new rule of law, or overrule an old one. It simply interpreted constitutional guarantees afforded to defendant as requiring, upon demand, the prosecution to divulge the name of a participant-informer. But it did not involve evidence such as was subject to an inherent defect as in the Cahan case. There it was held that the unlawfully secured evidence was inadmissible. But, in the instant case, the officer's testimony about what he saw and heard the...