People v. Brickman
| Decision Date | 20 July 1953 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4952 |
| Citation | 259 P.2d 917,119 Cal.App.2d 253 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BRICKMAN. |
A. Brian Weinberg, Santa Monica, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Alan R. Woodard, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In an information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, defendant was charged with the offense of having in his possession flowering tops and leaves of Indian hemp (Cannabis Sativa), in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code.
Following the entry of a plea of not guilty the cause proceeded to trial before a jury which returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of the charge filed against him. His motion for a new trial was denied and he was sentenced to a term of ninety days in the county jail.
From the judgment of conviction and from the order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant prosecutes this appeal.
Epitomizing the factual background of this prosecution, the record reflects that defendant was a young man 19 years of age. While his mother was confined in a hospital he left the family house after a quarrel with his father. He became associated with three older men named Robert Douthit, Mickey Avrutine and Charles Castle.
On April 6, 1952, defendant and the foregoing three men rented from Mrs. Lydia McNulty, and moved into a cottage-type apartment at 1141 1/2 18th Street in the city of Santa Monica, California. The receipt for the rent deposit paid was made out to defendant. After the first week, the wife of Charles Castle moved into the apartment and a week later another man also moved in.
Approximately one week prior to May 4, Mrs. McNulty, the landlady, saw Mrs. Castle come out into the yard carrying newspapers and a number of dried stalks in a large bag which she placed in the barbecue pit. These stalks were subsequently burned in the incinerator by Mrs. McNulty.
Becoming dissatisfied with her tenants, Mrs. McNulty, on April 30, apprised them of this fact and advised them to vacate when their month was up.
On Friday evening, May 2, Mrs. McNulty saw her tenants moving out. On that occasion she noticed defendant go back into the apartment after helping to carry out some bags. However, defendant departed that same evening about 8:30 o'clock and went to the Wisconsin Hotel where he spent the following two nights with a friend. Between Friday night and Sunday afternoon, Mrs. McNulty did not see any one in or about the apartment.
On Sunday, May 4, Mrs. McNulty went into the apartment to get the linens off the beds for washing. In pulling the sheets off the bed in the rear bedroom she heard a thud on the floor. Upon investigating, she found a pair of blue jeans and a C & H sugar bag containing a white sandwich bag, with leafy contents and four No. 6 brown manila bags, each containing a similar white bag and leafy contents. She returned to her own house, talked to her husband about what she had found, and they decided to call the police.
Shortly after receiving this call, Captain Reinbold and Officer Askew of the Santa Monica Police Department, arrived at the McNulty residence. They spoke to Mr. and Mrs. McNulty in the front house, observed the C & H sugar bag and the contents thereof on the dining room table and then went to the rear house, taking the sugar bag with them. They went into the rear bedroom, where they found the blue jeans. Officer Askew was left at the rear house, vacated by defendant and the other tenants, with one of the brown paper sacks. The front door was locked, and Captain Reinbold and the McNultys left. Reinbold returned directly to police headquarters where he locked the sugar bag in his desk drawer.
At approximately 4:40 p. m. on the same day, Officer Rydgren joined Officers Askew and Gomez inside the rear house. Askew left at this time and approximately half an hour later defendant returned with a young lady, at which time he was placed under arrest. Shortly thereafter, two other officers came and took defendant and the girl to headquarters. Defendant stated that he came back to the house for the purpose of picking up a toy monkey and a book he had forgotten.
At police headquarters defendant was questioned that evening by Officer Askew. They then went to the Wisconsin Hotel in Ocean Park and found two suitcases and some boxes belonging to defendant. During this conversation, defendant denied that the narcotics were his. He admitted that the girl accompanying him was the sister of one Bonner Brown, a 'narcotics pusher' in the Ocean Park area. He had known the girl for several years but stated that he had not been with her before. That he had met her at a cafe in Ocean Park during the afternoon and invited her to accompany him.
Castle, Douthit and Avrutine were arrested when they returned to the house at about 2 a. m. on May 5.
On the morning of Monday, May 5, 1952, officers Hillaiel and Askew returned to 1141 1/2 18th Street and conducted a search of the premises, which disclosed 27 marihuana cigarettes in a clothespin bag hanging in the kitchen. They then returned to headquarters and questioned the persons in custody. At approximately 1:30 they questioned each of the suspects individually. The statements made by defendant at this time were given freely and voluntarily, no force or violence was visited upon his person, nor were any promises of reward or immunity made. Defendant asked, 'What will I get?' When he was told that he would have to go to court he denied that the 'stuff' was his. Castle was then questioned individually for about 40 minutes and then defendant was brought back into the room, at which time a conversation was had between defendant, Castle and officers Hillaiel and Askew. Castle began the conversation:
Officer Hillaiel testified that he thought it was Phoenix, Arizona.
In response to these statements, defendant said:
Castle was then taken out of the room and defendant continued to talk. He said he had made a contact down at the south side of town at a cocktail lounge where a man approached him and asked if he wanted to buy 'a little stuff'. When defendant indicated that he did, he was given a phone number, which he called. He was told over the phone to enclose $100 in an envelope and put it alongside his house at a certain spot near the alley. Defendant then continued:
When asked how it was received, defendant replied:
'I rolled many of them and then I would take some scotch tape and I would secure 3 sticks in a bundle.'
Defendant also admitted that he had rolled the 27 cigarettes.
When asked how much he was selling the 'stuff' for, he said,
Defendant then stated that he had planted the 'stuff' in Castle's trousers. He indicated that he had tried using it in the past but that this was his first attempt at 'pushing' it. Defendant stated that the reason the 'stuff' was still in the house was that it wasn't moving very fast. Defendant admitted that he put the C & H sugar bag in Castle's pants because there was no other place to hide it.
At the trial defendant denied that any of the foregoing contraband was his or that he had ever admitted possession or knowledge thereof to the officers.
At the trial, Jesse Klein, an investigator in the Office of the District Attorney, testified that he had received subpoenas on June 23, 1952, and had been directed to serve them on Robert Douthit, Charles L. Castle and Murray Robert Avrutine.
His efforts to serve Douthit consisted of going to the Metropole Hotel on June 23. The register there revealed that Douthit had been registered there for about a week and had been gone two weeks prior to this date. H...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Giddings
...admissions or contradictory statements and explanations are frequently sufficient. People v. Foster, supra; People v. Brickman, 119 Cal.App.2d 253, 263, 259 P.2d 917. Furthermore, evidence of other acts of similar nature are admissible when not too remote in order to show guilty knowledge o......
-
People v. Candiotto
...385, 231 P.2d at page 884; the same court which decided People v. Batwin, supra, 120 Cal.App.2d 825, 262 P.2d 640.In People v. Brickman, 119 Cal.App.2d 253, 259 P.2d 917, the appellant complained that the trial court failed to instruct that the jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt......
-
People v. Denne
...statements and explanations are frequently sufficient.' People v. Foster, 115 Cal.App.2d 866, 868, 253 P.2d 50, 51; People v. Brickman, 119 Cal.App.2d 253, 263, 259 P.2d 917. Furthermore, evidence of other acts of similar nature ae admissible when not too remote in order to show guilty know......
-
People v. Gallagher
...15 P.2d 809; People v. Blinks, 158 Cal.App.2d 264, 322 P.2d 466; People v. McDaniel, 154 Cal.App.2d 475, 316 P.2d 660; People v. Brickman, 119 Cal.App.2d 253, 259 P.2d 917; People v. Newman, 127 Cal.App.2d 430, 273 P.2d 917; People v. Noland, 61 Cal.App.2d 364, 143 P.2d 86. It is not essent......