People v. Chavez
| Decision Date | 17 February 1966 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 10103 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Henry Palos CHAVEZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Robert M. Ebiner, West Covina, under appointment by the District Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Bradley A Stoutt, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant Chavez and codefendant Herrera were charged with the sale and furnishing of heroin (Health & Saf.Code, § 11501).
After a jury trial defendant Chavez was found guilty and Herrera was found not guilty. Criminal proceedings were then adjourned so that a civil proceeding might be undertaken for Chavez' commitment as an addict under Penal Code, section 6451 (now Welf. & Inst.Code, § 3051). Sometime later criminal proceedings were reinstated and he was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law, from which judgment he appeals.
The contentions made by appellant are (1) that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law and (2) that the use in evidence of statements which he made after his arrest now entitle him to a reversal under the authority of Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, and People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361.
The evidence and inferences therefrom which support the judgment require only a brief statement. On May 1, 1963, a state narcotic agent, Antonio Cota, Jr., conducting an undercover investigation and using the name of 'Manuel,' was introduced to Herrera in a bar. The following morning Herrera introduced 'Manuel' to Chavez. The latter told Cota he could deliver some heroin at 4 o'clock, the price "* * * shouldn't be much over two seventy-five. * * *" and that the stuff was good enough that you could make another ounce out of it by adding an ounce of sugar. Sometime after 4 p. m. the three men again met. Herrera and Chavez instructed Cota to park his car at a designated location in Monterey Park. At this meeting point Herrera approached Cota's vehicle on foot while Chavez remained in the background. Herrera spoke with Cota, then conferred with Chavez, spoke again with Cota, and went back to Chavez once more before he delivered to Cota a package of white powder, for which Cota gave $290. Laboratory analysis later established that the powder weighed 22.3 grams and contained heroin.
On May 8 Cota again met Chavez and said he wanted to buy an ounce of heroin. Chavez said he thought he could supply it and then asked "How was the stuff we gave you the other day?" Cota complained about the quality and the price. Chavez stated that he would let Cota have an ounce for $250 and the quality would be better. On May 9 the three met again. When Chavez said he could not make delivery until later, Cota identified himself and placed both Chavez and Herrera under arrest.
Herrera's defense to this charge was entrapment. He did not deny that the transaction had taken place. He testified that he had assisted Cota to find some heroin only because he had been importuned to do so by a friend whom he had met in jail. Chavez, testifying in his own defense, admitted that he had accompanied the other two men in a search for heroin on May 2, but denied that he had furnished heroin to anyone or received any money on that day.
Evidently the jurors believed Herrera's testimony, or at least gave him the benefit of a reasonable doubt, for they acquitted him. But the jury did not believe Chavez. It was the function of the jury to determine the factual issues, and this court must assume in favor of the verdict the existence of every fact which the jury could reasonably have deduced from the evidence. (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.2d 778.)
By this standard the evidence is clearly sufficient. From Cota's testimony as to what Chavez said and did before and after the May 2 transaction, the jury could reasonably infer that Chavez was the real seller and that Herrera was a mere go-between. This is so even though there is no direct evidence that Chavez had possessed the heroin or that he received the consideration.
People v. Martinez, 232 Cal.App.2d 796, 43 Cal.Rptr. 197, cited by appellant, is not in point. In that case, where the charge was possession of heroin for sale, the evidence of possession was obtained by an unlawful search, and therefore was inadmissible. Without the illegally obtained evidence the prosecution had no corpus delicti. No comparable defect appears in the case at bench.
The record contains the following testimony of Agent Cota as to a statement which Chavez made immediately following the arrest:
'Defendant Chavez, upon being placed under arrest, stated to me, he said,
'At this time I asked Chavez, 'How much stuff does he have?'
'And he said, 'I think he's got about seven or eight pieces.'
'I said, 'Where are they?'
'And he said, 'If you let me go in there, 'I'll find out where they are and you can get him.'
'I told him,
'At this time I, I asked him, 'If he is the connection, how about the guy over there on East Olympic?'
'And he said, 'Oh, that was Joe Martinez.'
'I said, 'I thought you said you had gotten the stuff from him the other day?'
'And he says, 'No. I got it from Joe Trujillo who lives over here on Siskiyou, but Joe Trujillo was over at Joe Martinez' house on East Olympic.'
'At this time he again stated,
Chavez requested that Cota visit him after he was booked. About 11 o'clock that evening while Cota was in his office he received a call to come to the jail. There they had a further conversation which is described in Cota's testimony:
'Q BY MR. GUSTAFSON: Would you tell us what was said relative to the charge now before the Court?
'A Yes. At this time he began he stated, 'The stuff I gave to you the other day,' or 'The stuff that you got the other day, I got it from Joe Trujillo, and he was over at Joe Martinez' house over on East Olympic.'
'At this time I asked him, 'Well, how much money--how much money did you have at the house?'
'And he said, 'Oh, about $300.00.'
[At this point there was on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elder v. Board of Medical Examiners
... ... that he went through the cards that were in the metal filing cabinet designated by the nurse; that he read all of them that related to people who were using Methedrine; that 'On many of the record cards was the notation--a similar notation to the effect that Methedrine helps; reduces ... ...
- People v. Natividad
-
People v. Sullivan
...in favor of the verdict of the existence of every fact which the jury could have deduced from the evidence. (People v. Chavez, (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 248, 250--251, 49 Cal.Rptr. 425.) Here we have the positive identification of Brown and Sullivan by Mr. Cable and the identification by Mr. Be......
-
People v. Fuentes
...was the victim of an unreasonable search. We approach the factual issues in this case as an appellate court. (People v. Chavez, 240 Cal.App.2d 248, 250--251, 49 Cal.Rptr. 425; People v. DeJean, 249 Cal.App.2d 220, 227, * 57 Cal.Rptr. 211.) The guilt of appellant and the corpus delicti can b......