People v. Carrasco, Cr. 6088
| Decision Date | 31 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6088 |
| Citation | 159 Cal.App.2d 63,323 P.2d 129 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jesus Nieto CARRASCO and Lorenze Barrios, Defendants. Jesus Nieto Carrasco, Appellant. |
Harold J. Ackerman, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Jack E. Goertzen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Jesus Nieto Carrasco and Lorenzo Barrios were accused by information of the unlawful possession of marijuana, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11500. In a court trial, Barrios was found not guilty and Carrasco was found guilty as charged in the information. Defendant made a motion for new trial, which was denied. Probation was likewise denied, and Carrasco was sentenced to state prison. He appeals from the judgment and the order denying him a new trial. The sole contention is that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of possession.
Florentino Limon, a Los Angeles police officer assigned to the 'gang' detail of the Homicide Division, was the only witness for the People. The following is the substance of his testimony. On the afternoon of June 5, 1957, Officer Limon and a fellow officer went to defendant's home at 2819 Alcazar Street in Los Angeles. The officers knocked on the door and defendant answered. Officer Limon said 'We are looking for Wero' (a Mexican nickname corresponding to 'Whitey') and defendant said 'I am Whitey.' Limon asked 'Can we talk to you?' and defendant said 'Yes, come on in.' Upon entering the house, the officers identified themselves and told defendant that he was under arrest for selling narcotics to juveniles. When asked by the officers if he had any narcotics in the house, defendant said 'No.' Upon being asked 'Would you mind if we look?' defendant said 'No, go ahead.'
The officers went into the kitchen where they found a white cannister and some large brown paper bags. One of the bags was open; inside it were a number of Prince Albert tobacco cans. The officers examined the cans and found that some were empty while others contained a green leafy substance that resembled marijuana. There was also a small amount of the same substance on the bottom of the cannister. When asked if he knew what was in the containers, defendant said 'No.' Officer Limon said that he thought the substance was a narcotic and asked defendant if he had any more around the house. Defendant again denied having any narcotics and said 'Go ahead, you won't find anything.'
The officers then went into the living room where they found Carrasco's co-defendant Barrios together with another man named Rios. The officers searched the room and discovered the remains of a marijuana cigarette in an ashtray stand and some brown paper wrapping from another marijuana cigarette in the arm of a couch.
Upon being questioned by the officers, Barrios said that he was staying with Carrasco and had only been in Los Angeles for a week. He disclaimed any knowledge of the marijuana and denied being a user of narcotics. In response to the officers' questions, Carrasco said that he had lived in the house for several years and that he did not use narcotics. He told the officers that an old man who dealt in tobacco had left the containers the previous night and had promised to return for them. Officer Limon asked: 'Whitey, if somebody leaves something at your house, don't you try to find out what it is?' and defendant replied: 'He told me they were tobacco and I didn't think he was lying.'
Defendant, testifying in his own behalf, denied that the containers were his. He stated that an old man named Blackie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Miller
...120 Cal.App.2d 825, 262 P.2d 88) of a narcotic, knowing it to be such. People v. Winston, 46 Cal.2d 151, 293 P.2d 40; People v. Carrasco, 159 Cal.App.2d 63, 323 P.2d 129; People v. White, 50 Cal.2d 428, 325 P.2d 985; People v. Lopez, 169 Cal.App.2d 344, 337 P.2d 570. The Court in People v. ......
-
People v. Williams
...also claims that the People had the burden to prove that Baiza had possession of marijuana, which is correct (People v. Carrasco, 159 Cal.App.2d 63, 65, 323 P.2d 129), and that defendant knew that Baiza could furnish In People v. Foster, 115 Cal.App.2d 866, 868, 253 P.2d 50, 51, the court s......
-
People v. Lopez
...120 Cal.App.2d 825, 262 P.2d 88) of a narcotic, knowing it to be such (People v. Winston, 46 Cal.2d 151, 293 P.2d 40; People v. Carrasco, 159 Cal.App.2d 63, 323 P.2d 129; People v. White, 50 Cal.2d 428, 325 P.2d 985). However, these elements may be established by circumstantial evidence fro......
- People v. Goodman