People v. Cisneros
| Citation | 332 P.2d 376,166 Cal.App.2d 100 |
| Decision Date | 12 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6244 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Amador Ramos CISNEROS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Gladys Towles Root and Eugene V. McPherson, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Miles J. Rubin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In a court trial, Amador Ramos Cisneros was found guilty of possessing heroin and was sentenced to state prison. He appeals from the judgment.
The evidence consisted of the transcript of the preliminary hearing and additional evidence introduced at the trial. At 12:30 p. m. on October 2, 1957, Officers Sanchez, Comacho and Malogovitch had under observation an apartment located at 332 West 28th Street in Los Angeles. Officer Sanchez testified that Cisneros left the apartment and started to walk east on 28th Street. Sanchez approached Cisneros and identified himself as a police officer, whereupon appellant ran into the driveway of the building next door to No. 332 and drooped a piece of newspaper on the ground. The newspaper opened and Sanchez observed three balloons, which contained a number of capsules. In the officer's opinion, based upon his familiarity with the method of transporting narcotics in Los Angeles County, the capsules contained a narcotic. They were proved to contain heroin.
Officer Sanchez called out to Officer Comacho, who apprehended appellant and placed him under arrest. When asked by the officers for identification, Cisneros showed them a driver's license giving his address as 332 West 28th Street. Upon being asked why he ran, appellant replied that he had to try and make it. The officers asked him whether the capsules were 'all he had' and Cisneros replied in the affirmative; appellant told the officers that the capsules contained two or three grams for his personal use.
The officers went to the apartment with Cisneros. Officer Comacho searched the bedroom closet and found five gelatine capsules containing a white powder inside a coat; the officer also found a small piece of newspaper containing a contraceptive with white powder in it. Appellant told the officers that the coat was his; he also stated that the 'stuff' in the closet belonged to him. The powder was proved to consist of heroin. The officers also found a box of empty gelatine capsules in appellant's bathroom.
The contraband dropped by Cinsneros outside the apartment was received in evidence without objection. Appellant's counsel initially objected to the introduction in evidence of all the items found in the apartment. At the close of the People's case, he renewed his objection, but limited it to the box of empty gelatine capsules; the objection was overruled by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Curcio
...People v. Williams, 174 Cal.App.2d 175, 179-180, 344 P.2d 45; People v. Poole, 174 Cal.App.2d 57, 60, 344 P.2d 30; People v. Cisneros, 166 Cal.App.2d 100, 102, 332 P.2d 376.) Whether there is reasonable cause depends upon the circumstances of each individual case. A test is: Would the circu......
-
People v. Webb
...v. Vegazo, 191 Cal.App.2d 666, 670-671, 13 Cal.Rptr. 22; see People v. Blodgett, 46 Cal.2d 114, 117, 293 P.2d 57; People v. Cisneros, 166 Cal.App.2d 100, 102, 332 P.2d 376.) Having concluded that defendant's arrest was lawful, we turn to a consideration of the legality of the search of defe......
-
People v. Satterfield
...207 Cal.App.2d 725, 728, 24 Cal.Rptr. 675; People v. McMurray (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 178, 185, 340 P.2d 335; People v. Cisneros (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 100, 102, 332 P.2d 376); where his possession was reasonably inferred when contraband was found in the fresh tracks of his flight (People v. H......
-
People v. Webb
...(1956) 46 Cal.2d 106, 108, 293 P.2d 52; People v. Vegazo (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 666, 668--671, 13 Cal.Rptr. 22; People v. Cisneros (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 100, 102, 332 P.2d 376; People v. Paul (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 609, 617, 305 P.2d A more difficult question is presented by defendant's chall......