People v. Candalaria, Cr. 5084
| Decision Date | 04 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5084 |
| Citation | 264 P.2d 71,121 Cal.App.2d 686 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CANDALARIA. |
John H. Marshall, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., James D. Loebl, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of violating section 11714 of the Health and Safety Code in that he sold, furnished and administered heroin to Rosamond, a minor. He appeals from the ensuing judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.
In January of this year, Bob drove Rosamond and her girl friend, Carol, also a minor, to defendant's home. The latter joined them in Bob's automobile where Rosamond had a conversation with him about the purchase of some heroin from him. Defendant left the car and went to the side of the house and returned with some object in his hand. There was further conversation between the girls and defendant relative to buying 'half a cap.' Carol asked defendant 'if it was good and he said yes.' Rosamond gave defendant $5. The four young people drove to an orange grove on the other side of San Fernando, stopping at a hydrant, however, to fill the top of Carol's make-up case. Upon reaching the middle of the orange grove they stopped. Defendant brought forth a cellophane packet of capsules from his sock. Then 'an outfit' consisting of a hypodermic needle, eye-dropper, cotton, matches, and bottle cap was produced. Defendant then emptied a white powder from one of the capsules into the bottle cap, put in a few drops of water, mixed it and 'cooked it' by applying a lighted match. By the use of the eye-dropper and cotton the liquid was transferred to the needle, injected into Rosamond's arm and the back of Carol's hand. Defendant also had an injection.
On another occasion, at Carol's home, defendant furnished capsules of light brown powder which were 'cooked' in the bath room, where the liquid was injected into the girls' veins. There was testimony that at another time Rosamond gave defendant $10 for 'two caps.' Carol never gave defendant any money directly, but she gave it to Rosamond for delivery to him.
Carol testified that she had used heroin at least 30 or 40 times, at irregular intervals, and had gotten it either by sale or gift from ten to fifteen different people before she met defendant. She had blue needle marks on the back of both hands and wrists when she testified. She described the sensation and testified that she got the same effect from these injections. When she gave up the use of narcotics she suffered certain withdrawal symptoms which she described. Rosamond had used various narcotics for about two years, having used heroin perhaps twenty times during the past year. She, too, described the sensations and effects of these shots. The testimony of the girls as to the method of preparing heroin for injection, its color, the sensation received from it, and the withdrawal symptoms caused by failure to use the drug corresponded very closely to that of an expert on the same subjects.
Defendant's appearance had changed considerably between the time of these incidents and the trial. When he was associating with these girls he had a mustache; at the trial he had no mustache, and his hair was darker.
Defendant not only denied furnishing the girls any narcotics but also denied ever having known either of them. He further sought to establish an alibi by showing that he was working on his uncle's ranch near Lancaster, California, on the crucial date.
Defendant attacks the judgment upon three grounds: (1) that the People failed to prove the corpus delicti; (2) that the court erred in permitting Rosamond to testify that the substance furnished her by defendant was heroin; and (3) that the court erred in refusing to give certain requested instructions. None of these contentions, however, is meritorious.
In support of his argument that the corpus delicti was not established, defendant insists it was not shown that the substance he allegedly furnished Rosamond was heroin. Ordinarily, the character of such substance is proved by a trained expert who has made a chemical analysis thereof. Here no such proof was offered because none of the powder was available for analysis. This, however, is not fatal to the People's case for the corpus delicti may be proved by circumstantial evidence. People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624, 234 P.2d 1; People v. Ives, 17 Cal.2d 459, 463, 110 P.2d 408. The jury had for its consideration on this question the testimony that before the quartet drove to the orange grove Rosamond told defendant she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chrisman
...not fatal to the People's case for the corpus delicti may be proved by circumstantial evidence. (Citations.)' (People v. Candalaria (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 686, 689, 264 P.2d 71, 72; and see People v. Winston (1956) 46 Cal.2d 151, 155, 293 P.2d 40; People v. Ihm (1966) 247 A.C.A. 388, 392, 55......
-
People v. Winston
...is a narcotic, there must be not only the testimony of the user but also that of a medical doctor or expert. People v. Candalaria, 121 Cal.App.2d 686, 264 P.2d 71; People v. Tipton, 124 Cal.App.2d 213, 268 P.2d 196. Although in the cited cases, in addition to the testimony of the users, exp......
-
People v. Winston
...or expert. We know of no such requirement. It is true that in People v. Tipton, 124 Cal.App.2d 213, 268 P.2d 196, and People v. Candalaria, 121 Cal.App.2d 686, 264 P.2d 71, there was in addition to the testimony of the users, that of experts who testified that in their opinion, from the des......
-
Slettvet v. State
...v. Rios (1954), 127 Cal.App.2d 620, 274 P.2d 163; People v. Tipton (1954), 124 Cal.App.2d 213, 268 P.2d 196; People v. Candalaria (1953), 121 Cal.App.2d 686, 264 P.2d 71. However, when the drugs themselves are not placed into evidence and there is no expert testimony based on a chemical ana......