People v. Blunt

• Decision Date: 29 March 1966
• Docket Number: Cr. 10997
• Citation: 241 Cal.App.2d 200,50 Cal.Rptr. 440
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. George BLUNT, Jr., and Edward Cotis Mims, Defendants and Appellants.

Page 440

50 Cal.Rptr. 440

241 Cal.App.2d 200

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. George BLUNT, Jr., and Edward Cotis Mims, Defendants and Appellants.

Cr. 10997.

District Court of Appeal, Second District Division 4, California.

March 29, 1966.

Hearing Denied May 25, 1966.

Gilda R. Cohen, Beverly Hills, under appointment by District Court of Appeal, for defendants and appellants.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norman H. Sokolow Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

JEFFERSON, Justice.

By information, defendants George Blunt and Edward Mims, were each charged with possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code § 11530) in count 1, and offering to sell, furnish and give away marijuana (Health & Saf.Code § 11531) in count 2. Three prior felony convictions were alleged against Blunt and one against Mims. The trial was by the court sitting without a jury. The case was submitted on the transcript of the preliminary hearing with Blunt offering additional testimony. The court found Blunt guilty of possession of marijuana (count 1) and not guilty of count 2. Mims was found not guilty of possession (count 1), but guilty of the charge that he offered to sell or furnish it (count 2). A motion for new trial by Mims was denied. In lieu of granting the motion, however, the court found Mims guilty of possession of marijuana, 'a lesser but necessarily included offense in that charged in count 2.' The alleged prior convictions were found to be true but were stricken by the court. Probation was denied to defendants and both were sentenced to state prison. Defendants appeal from the judgments entered.

The charges against defendants arose out of a single incident which occurred during the early morning hours of December 3, 1964. Officer James Willis of the Los Angeles Police Department had entered the 2023 Club on South Central Avenue. He was accompanied by another officer. Willis stationed himself at the bar. Over a period of time he saw several persons enter and leave the men's restroom. He observed that on several occasions Mims entered the restroom after these persons. Officer Willis then walked into the restroom and stood near a group of men, including Mims. He overheard Mims tell an unidentified person, 'I can score for you and we can both get high.' After the unidentified person walked out Willis engaged Mims in conversation. The officer stated 'Where's the stuff?' (Meaning marijuana.) Mims replied that he could 'score' for him if he wanted him to, and asked how many he wanted. The officer stated 'I would like to get four joints.' (Marijuana cigaretes.) Mims told him to wait in the restroom until he returned. He then left and went into the bar area. He returned about ten minutes later accompanied by defendant Blunt. The latter held out his hand and the officer observed that he was holding four brown paper wrapped cigarettes which appeared to be marijuana. At this point the officer identified himself and placed Blunt and Mims under arrest. They were taken to the police station in a police vehicle along with another person who was also arrested at the club. Upon reaching the station Officer Willis discovered what appeared to be a small quantity of marijuana in a piece of paper in the back seat of the vehicle where defendants and the other person had ridden. The vehicle had been cleaned out earlier that evening and no one other than the officers had been in it prior to the arrests of defendants. No charges were filed against the person arrested with defendants.

It was stipulated that the four cigarettes which defendant Blunt had in his hand, and the substance found inside the piece of paper in the back seat of the police vehicle, were tested and determined to be marijuana.

Defendant Blunt testified that he was in the restroom of the 2023 Club at about 2:00 a.m. on December 3, when a man entered, pulled a gun and identified himself as a police officer; he was then searched, as was Mims; from his right front pocket the officer removed four marijuana cigarettes; he told the officer he bought them 'from a guy up there in the bar'; they found this person and all three of them were put in the back seat of a police car; he and Mims were handcuffed but the third person was not; the third person was released after they reached the police station; he then told the officer that on the way to the station he saw this person take some marijuana and push it down behind the seat; the officer searched the vehicle and found the marijuana; the third person was subsequently picked up. Blunt further testified that he had not been brought to the restroom by Mims at the time he was arrested; he hardly knew Mims.

Mims urges that his conviction was not supported by the evidence and was contrary to law. In particular, he maintains that the court, having acquitted him of the charge of possession of marijuana (as alleged in count 1 of the information), could not thereafter ignore that finding and find him guilty of a charge of possession of marijuana as a necessarily included offense in the count 2 charge alleging that he offered to sell and furnish it.

Defendant points to a comment made by the trial court which, he argues, is inconsistent with the finding that he was in possession of the contraband. When the initial verdict was rendered, the court said:

'As to Mims, I find him guilty of setting up the sale, and to that extent guilty of the sale, but he is not, in my opinion, guilty of the possession of marijuana in the car. He is certainly not guilty of the marijuana in Blunt's possession under these circumstances, so I acquit him of those counts.'

Thereafter, when defendant Mims moved for a new trial he asked the court, in lieu of granting the motion, to reduce the offense. The court went along with this request.

Both parties to this appeal apparently rely on People v. Rosales, 226 Cal.App.2d 588, 38 Cal.Rptr. 329, for the proposition that the offense of possession of marijuana is a necessarily included offense within a charge of offering to sell, furnish and give away marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11531. In Rosales this court held that (at p. 592, 38 Cal.Rptr. at p. 331) 'No sale of narcotics is...