People v. Boyd, Cr. 2948

• Decision Date: 02 September 1959
• Docket Number: Cr. 2948
• Citation: 173 Cal.App.2d 537,343 P.2d 283
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Hurchel E. BOYD, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 283

343 P.2d 283

173 Cal.App.2d 537

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Hurchel E. BOYD, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 2948.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Sept. 2, 1959.

Charles Luther, Sacramento, for appellant.

The Attorney General, by Doris H. Maier and Lloyd Hinkelman, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

PEEK, Acting Presiding Justice.

The defendant was found guilty of the possession of narcotics in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. He now appeals, contending that his arrest was illegal in that the search incident thereto was illegal, and that the trial court erred in unduly restricting his cross-examination of one of the police officers. It is our conclusion that under the particular circumstances of the case, both contentions are without merit.

The record shows that defendant's arrest resulted from information supplied to Stockton police officers by one Harry Bray that narcotics were being sold at a house occupied by defendant and one Christiansen; that Bray had made no purchases from the defendant but had made purchases from Christiansen in the presence of defendant, and that the defendant was usually at the house at all hours. In the company of Bray, police officers proceeded to the house in question. While the officers watched, Bray went into the house and made a purchase from Christiansen. Failing in their attempt to apprehend Christiansen, the officers returned to the house, and finding the front door open, they entered. Defendant was found lying on the floor of the bedroom and was placed under arrest, and the house and grounds were searched for some 30 or 35 minutes. It was not until defendant was dressing preparatory to being taken to the police station that a bindle containing heroin was found in a match box in the pocket of his shirt. Defendant stated to the officers that the shirt was his.

During the course of cross-examination of the main witness for the State, Officer Roop, defendant's counsel attempted to elicit testimony concerning the reliability of the informer Bray and the information given by him to the officers on previous occasions. The court, however, restricted counsel's attempt to so interrogate Roop.

At the conclusion of the State's case the district attorney, over the objection of counsel, introduced into evidence a statement made by the defendant to police officers on the day of his arrest. In this statement the defendant admitted that the shirt and the heroin found therein were his, and that he carried the narcotic because of an ulcer condition.

The mere presence of a person on the premises where officers have reason to believe there are narcotics will not justify either his arrest nor a search of his person. See People v. Yet Ning Yee, 145 Cal.App.2d 513, 516-517, 302 P.2d 616. However where, as here, there are additional factors such as defendant's residence at...