People v. Bagley
| Decision Date | 08 June 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5352 |
| Citation | 284 P.2d 36,133 Cal.App.2d 481 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Charles BAGLEY and Don Ray Baucom, Defendants, Don Ray Baucom, Defendant and Appellant. |
John H. Marshall, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant Baucom was convicted of possession of heroin, in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and the order denying his motion for a new trial.
In the afternoon of August 10, 1954, Deputy Sheriffs Stahl and Talbot were admitted to apartment No. 107 at 187 South Alvarado, in Los Angeles, by defendant Bagley. On searching the premises the officers found on the edge of the bathtub an eye dropper, two hypodermic needles and a prophylactic containing approximately 3 grams (45 grains) of a brownish white powder which, upon analysis, proved to be heroin. Such paraphernalia is ordinarily used in getting an injection of heroin. Also, they found boxes containing packages of cigarette papers, loose rubber bands, small pieces of paper for making bindles, empty 5-grain gelatin capsules and a prophylactic. Such equipment is used by persons trafficking in narcotics. The officers found approximately $1,225 in the apartment and on defendant Bagley's person.
Soon thereafter appellant entered the apartment. He was searched for narcotics but none was found. When asked whether he had rented the apartment he stated that he had rented it under the name of Don Cartier. On the witness stand appellant testified that he rented the apartment on August 1st and explained the transaction as follows:
At various times during the interview with the officers both appellant and Bagley said they had been living there together. The officers found some men's clothing in the apartment. Appellant stated that part of the clothes were his and Bagley acknowledged that some of them belonged to him.
When appellant was first asked whether he knew there were any narcotics in the apartment he remained silent. Later he denied such knowledge and denied that the narcotics found in the bathroom were his. At another time appellant stated he received no money from Bagley, that he merely 'delivered' for Bagley, and that he was at liberty to use any amount of heroin he wished.
The officers examined appellant's person. Below the elbow on his left arm, on the inside, they found 'numerous scabs or injection marks.' One of the officers who was experienced in this field gave the opinion, from the way the scabs appeared, that four or five of them were the result of injections 'within the last ten days.' The officer also noticed the pupils of appellant's eyes were dilated and that he acted as if he were sleepy. From these circumstances the officer was of the opinion that appellant was under the influence of an opiate. Heroin is, of course, a derivative of opium. Appellant stated to officer Talbot that he used from one to two grams of the 'stuff' per day.
Appellant's story was that he and his wife had been living with her mother in Inglewood; that about the first of August he had an argument with his wife and moved out, taking some of his clothes; and that he moved in with Bagley for a couple of days; that he was ill; that he called up his wife and arranged to go back to his mother-in-law's home where he stayed until the day of his arrest; and that he came back to the apartment on that occasion for the purpose of getting his clothes. His mother-in-law corroborated his testimony relative to the argument with his wife and his leaving, his illness and return to her home after an absence to a couple of days. She further testified that he remained there most of the time between the 4th and 10th of August. On cross-examination appellant testified that he paid $50 rent for the apartment. He explained why he did not rent the apartment in Bagley's name as follows:
Appellant was informed by his wife, four or five days prior to August 1st, that officers from the Sheriff's Narcotic Detail had inquired as to his whereabouts. He did not, however, call the officers to find out what they wanted.
Appellant testified that none of the money found in the apartment belonged to him. It was Bagley's so far as he knew but he did not know how Bagley got it. At the trial appellant denied having any knowledge that heroin was in the apartment. He also denied telling the officers that he had either used or was free to use the narcotics found there or that he delivered any narcotics for Bagley. He admitted, however, two prior felony...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Modesto
...243 P. 667; 8 accord, People v. Hickok (1961) 198 Cal.App.2d 442, 446(6a)-448(6b), 17 Cal.Rptr. 875; People v. Bagley (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 481, 485-486(3), 284 P.2d 36; People v. Jackson (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 776, 780-781(6), 271 P.2d 196; cf. People v. Rosoto (1962) 58 Cal.2d 304, 353-355......
-
People v. Redrick
...occupant of the room although defendant had signed the register with the name X as well as his own name); People v. Bagley (1955), 133 Cal.App.2d 481, 484-485(2), 284 P.2d 36 (defendant rented the apartment where narcotics were found under an assumed name and gave a 'less than plausible' re......
-
People v. Yeoman
...the same. (People v. Winston, 46 Cal.2d 151, 161, 293 P.2d 40.) Defendant rented the apartment under an assumed name (People v. Bagley, 133 Cal.App.2d 481, 485, 284 P.2d 36); he claimed he had just come from New York, but numerous persons were seen going to his apartment staying only a shor......
-
People v. Jenkins
...is discovered in a place over which the defendant has general dominion and control: his residence (see, e. g., People v. Bagley (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 481, 484-485, 284 P.2d 36), his automobile (see, e. g., People v. Newman, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 53, 95 Cal.Rptr. 12, 484 P.2d 1356), or his p......