People v. Coleman, Cr. 2687

Citation224 P.2d 837,100 Cal.App.2d 797
Decision Date06 December 1950
Docket NumberCr. 2687
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE v. COLEMAN.

Leo A. Sullivan, Edwin A. Connor, Oakland, for appellant.

Fred N. Howser, Atty. Gen. of the State of California, David K. Lener, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BRAY, Justice.

Defendant and one Haynes were tried by the court without a jury for violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (transportation of heroin). Haynes was acquitted and defendant convicted. Defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying a new trial.

Facts.

Defendant and Haynes were seamen aboard the transport Hugh J. Gaffney, which on October 10, 1949, arrived at Oakland after a 28-day voyage from Yokohama. In the afternoon it shifted berth to Fort Mason, San Francisco. Haynes left the ship at Oakland, came to San Francisco and borrowed a sedan from his brother-in-law. He met the ship at Fort Mason, picked up Coleman, and four or five other shipmates, and drove them to a barber shop in the Fillmore district where they had several drinks. When Haynes and defendant left the barber shop, Haynes was to drive defendant to Oakland to a party being given by a girl friend of defendant. However, instead of going directly there, they claimed they were going out to Divisadero Street to pick up a cousin of Haynes, so that Haynes would not have to return from Oakland alone. He claimed that the car's battery was weak and he needed some one to push the car after stopping to get it started. Apparently some time elapsed between the time they left the barber shop and when they were arrested. Haynes said it was about an hour and they were 'Just riding and looking.' They had not yet gone to the consin's home. Haynes claimed they left the barber shop around 8 or 8:30 that evening. About 11:15 Officers Van Dervort and Keating of the Special Narcotics Detail noticed the car in which Haynes and defendant were riding, driving without lights. The officers' car followed it for two blocks, then turned on the siren and red lights, and forced the car to the curb. Keating, who was driving, got out of the police car on the left side, Van Dervort on the right. As they approached the Haynes car, Van Dervort was in advance of Keating. Both officers noticed a 'commotion' in the front seat. Keating noticed defendant lean forward in his seat at an angle of about forty-five degrees from the perpendicular. As Van Dervort put his hand on the right front door he saw defendant lean forward and make a throwing motion with his right hand between his legs toward the floor of the car. He at no time saw anything in defendant's hand. Van Dervort then pulled defendant out of the car, and reaching under the seat at the point where he had seen defendant make the gesture, found a small bottle containing a white powder. Van Dervort asked defendant why he had been bending over and defendant stated that he was just bending forward, but gave no reason for so doing. It is not clear from Van Dervort's testimony as to when he asked this question of defendant. Haynes testified that before Van Dervort discovered the bottle the latter asked defendant, 'What is that you put under the seat?' Defendant denied putting anything under the seat, and both he and Haynes denied any knowledge of the bottle or its contents. Both officers put their initials on the bottle, and Van Dervort '[t]ook it to the City Prison and booked it as evidence.' Van Dervort identified a bottle with white powder in it as the bottle he found in the car. It was then marked for identification. A chemist for the State Division of Narcotic Law Enforcement testified that he received this bottle from the Police Property Clerk's office, examined its contents and found it to be 31 grains of heroin.

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence.

Defendant contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove him guilty of transportation of heroin. He stresses the fact that Van Dervort saw nothing in defendant's hand when he made the throwing motion. However, the throwing motion plus the finding of the bottle at the place indicated by the gesture, raises the reasonable inference that defendant threw it there. He further contends that the evidence is improbable and contradictory. He points out that at the preliminary examination Van Dervort first stated that it was Haynes who made the throwing motion. It is obvious from an examination of the part of the transcript read into evidence that while he said 'Haynes,' he meant defendant. In the very connection in which he used Haynes' name he pointed out that Haynes was in the driver's seat and the throwing gesture was made by the man sitting alongside of him. Moreover, at the preliminary examination, as soon as the matter was called to his attention he corrected the mistake. In any event, it was for the trier of the facts to determine Van Dervort's credibility and to reconcile any discrepancies in his testimony, if any there were.

Defendant insists that there was a conflict in the testimony of the two officers as to where Van Dervort was when defendant leaned forward, contending that under Haynes' testimony, Van Dervort could not have seen a throwing gesture if one were made by defendant. A reading of the testimony shows that if there is a conflict it is more apparent than real. The resolving of such conflict is exclusively the province of the trial court. People v. O'Moore, 83 Cal.App.2d 586, 189 P.2d 554.

The officers saw the automobile in motion with defendant in it, saw defendant act in such a manner as to justify the belief that he had the heroin in his possession when he threw it under the seat. This was sufficient to fully support the charge of transporting heroin. While mere possession of a narcotic is not evidence of transportation, In re Chaus, 92 Cal.App. 384, 268 P. 422, here there was more than mere possession. Defendant was carrying the heroin in a moving vehicle. 'To transport means to carry or convey and, under certain circumstances, to conceal.' People v. Watkins, 96 Cal.App.2d 74, 214 P.2d 414, 416.

Lacunae in the Proof.

The bottle containing the white substance which the officers testified they found in the car and which the chemist said contained heroin, while marked for identification, was never offered in evidence, nor was there any proof that it was in the same condition when examined by the chemist as when left at the City Prison by Van Dervort. The chemist testified he received it in a sealed envelope. Ordinarily it is necessary, before the admission of testimony concerning an analysis of an exhibit, to prove that it has not been tampered with between its original receipt and the analysis. But here such procedure was waived by the conduct of defendant. When the chemist was called to the stand defendant, after stipulating to his qualifications, stated, 'I will go further, I will stipulate if there is a written report the Court may receive the report into evidence.' Thereupon the district attorney asked the chemist for his analysis and he gave it, without any objection from defendant. At no time in the trial court did the defendant make any objection to the procedure followed by the district attorney, nor make any objection that the powder analyzed by the chemist was not in the same condition as when found in the car, or that it was not properly connected up. It is too late to make such objection now. Nor is the failure to offer the bottle and contents in evidence important. The jury could not tell by looking at the powder whether or not it was heroin. Introducing it in evidence would have assisted the jury in no way. Strictly speaking, the bottle need not have been produced at the trial. Where a witness testified that he found a bottle containing a white powder, and a chemist says that powder, on analysis, proves to be heroin, there is no requirement that the bottle or powder be produced, at least in the absence of a demand by the defendant.

In People v. Berryman, 6 Cal.2d 331, 57 P.2d 136, a bottle which was found in deceased's car and on which were fingerprints of defendant was admitted in evidence after both sides had rested, but before argument. In discussing whether this was prejudicial error, the Supreme Court said 6 Cal.2d at page 339, 57 P.2d at page 139: 'Even if there was error, it was harmless as it was already in evidence that the bottle had been found in deceased's car shortly after his death and that it bore the fingerprints of the defendant.' A similar case to ours is People v. Brown, 92 Cal.App.2d 360, 206 P.2d 1095. There the officers had seized a newspaper bindel containing a brown powder, placed it in an envelope which was marked for identification and sealed with sealing wax, marked with the officer's thumb print. A chemist testified that he received the envelope (exhibit A for identification) from the property clerk, broke the seals, and analyzed the powder as heroin. To the contention of appellant, similar to that made here, the court said 92 Cal.App.2d at page 365, 206 P.2d at page 1098: 'When the exhibit was produced in court appellant had an opportunity to examine it for any signs that the same was tampered with, or to present any evidence, by way of cross-examination or otherwise, to that effect. The record discloses no objection by appellant either to the condition of the exhibit, or to the testimony of the police chemist. Such an objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.'

Alleged Errors.

(a) Motion to Dismiss.

At the conclusion of the People's case-in-chief, Haynes' attorney moved for a dismissal as to his client, apparently on the ground of insufficiency of evidence and delay in bringing him to trial. Thereupon defendant's counsel stated that he made the same motions on defendant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT