People v. Blinks, Cr. 6033
| Decision Date | 06 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6033 |
| Citation | 322 P.2d 466,158 Cal.App.2d 264 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jessie Angris BLINKS, Defendant and Appellant. |
John J. Guerin, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Carl Boronkay, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Convicted of possession of heroin (Health & Safety Code, § 11500), defendant's appeal rests upon the claim that the evidence is insufficient to show physical possession or control or that appellant knew of the existence of the heroin.
Police officers knocked on the door of a room of a hotel at 333 East Fourth Street, Los Angeles. In response to an inquiry they called out 'police officers.' In a few seconds the door was opened by a person known as Brown. As they entered the officers observed a curtain moving and the appellant's foot, clad in a tan sock, going out the window. Officer Leete went out the window in hot pursuit and saw appellant standing in the light well, six or seven feet from the window. He found a package containing four bindles lying near appellant's feet and close to a small drain in the center of the light well. Appellant denied knowing anything about the bindles, but he admitted using narcotics and stated he was 'shooting two half papers' a day. He said he went out the window to avoid being arrested for 'marks.' A search of the room was made and an eyedropper and finger stall were found. The contents of the four bindles proved to be heroin.
The light well of the hotel is foursided and two floors high. Each of the eight rooms facing it has two windows upon it. Appellant's contention is that any one could have thrown the bindles into the light well and that no logical deduction can be made from the facts leading to a conclusion that appellant had physical possession or control of the bindles of heroin at any time or that he knew of their existence. Thus he rests his case upon the possibility that some unknown third person was guilty of the offense in question, which possibility he presents as outweighing the probabilities emanating from the circumstances immediately surrounding his own apprehension. But a mere possibility affords no evidence whatever. People v. Williams, 151 Cal.App.2d 173, 179, 311 P.2d 117. 'Mere conjecture, surmise, or suspicion is not the equivalent of reasonable inference and does not constitute proof.' People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164, 186, 163 P.2d 8, 21.
At the word 'police' defendant, a confessed narcotics user, fled from the hotel room to the light well outside. Officer Leete pursued him as closely as possible. Officer Soviak said that Leete 'leaped and brought the defendant back into the room.' When Leete cleared the window curtain and could see outside, defendant was standing in the light well close to a drain therein. At or near his feet were bindles of heroin and the reasonable inference is that he had not had time to kick them into the drain or to lift the cover and drop them in if that was necessary. No one else was seen near the heroin. Appellant was undoubtedly bent upon secreting or otherwise disposing of the same when prevented by the police. Brown, who was the other occupant of the hotel room, was not seen to be engaged in disposing of the narcotic. He admitted the police as appellant disappeared through the window. He sat on the bed and talked to the officers. Though arrested, Brown was released at the preliminary hearing. The dropper and the finger stall found on the dresser are well-known aids to administration of the drug and were of immediate interest to appellant. As defendant stood in the light well in the dark with the heroin near his feet and the drain, Officer Leete threw the beam of his flashlight into a darkened room on the side of the light well opposite the room from which appellant had fled. One of its windows was open about 12 to 18 inches but the light revealed no one in the room. In all there were 16 windows on the light well, but Officer Leete saw none of them open except the two just mentioned. All the circumstances point to the probability that appellant took the bindles of heroin with him when he left the hotel neared the drain and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bernal
...Bernal later gave to Velasquez. The evidence and circumstances related authorized the jury to believe they were. People v. Blinks, 158 Cal.App.2d 264, 267, 322 P.2d 466; People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 104 P.2d 778. Defendants offered an instruction in the language of CALJIC 851 on entrap......
-
People v. Williams
...47, 52, 8 Cal.Rptr. 20. The evidence need not indicate proof of possession at the very time of the arrest. (People v. Blinks, 158 Cal.App.2d 264, 267, 322 P.2d 466.) Possession and knowledge may be proved circumstantially. Exclusive possession of the premises is not necessary nor is physica......
-
People v. Meyer
...possession can be proved by circumstantial evidence. (People v. Cahill, supra, pp. 20-21, 328 P.2d p. 999-1000; People v. Blinks, 158 Cal.App.2d 264, 267, 322 P.2d 466.) Here, the narcotics left the pharmacy under an arrangement made by the defendant that it was to be delivered to him at hi......
-
People v. Bowens
...People v. Magdaleno, 158 Cal.App.2d 48, 51, 322 P.2d 89; People v. Flores, 155 Cal.App.2d 347, 349, 318 P.2d 65; People v. Blinks, 158 Cal.App.2d 264, 267, 322 P.2d 466.) In the present case there was ample evidence from which the jury could infer that defendant had knowledge of the narcoti......