People v. Crayton, Cr. 2901
| Decision Date | 06 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2901 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ernest N. CRAYTON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
John E. Barbeau, Sacramento, for appellant.
Attorney General, by G. A. Strader, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of the possession of narcotics in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, and from the order of the trial court denying his motion for a new trial.
Two contentions are made by defendant: One, that he was convicted upon evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure; and two, that the court erred in refusing to compel disclosure of the names of informants.
The record shows that on January 9, 1957, at about 5 a. m., the defendant registered under an assumed name at a Sacramento motel and was assigned to room number 15. He also gave a false address in Stockton when registering. He stated another person was with him and was charged the daily rate for two persons. A sign was posted in the room indicating that the checkout time was 12 noon. Some time between 12:30 and 1 p. m., and while the motel manager and her husband were removing defendant's belongings from the room he had rented, two inspectors from the California Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement approached. They asked if a person of defendant's description had rented a room the previous night, and upon being informed that room number 15 had been occupied by such a person, they requested permission to search it. Pursuant to their request, the manager admitted them to the room. During their search they discovered, hidden under a drawer in the dresser, a box of 82 capsules, each of which contained a white substance later identified as heroin. In a further search two rubber sacks were found concealed in a lamp shade which likewise were later determined to contain heroin. The inspectors maintained a watch on the room, and the following morning at approximately 5 a.m. the defendant and one Frank Smith were arrested when they attempted to enter the room. Upon being shown the box containing the heroin capsules, but prior to its being opened, the defendant stated, 'Man, they sure must have wanted to frame me good by placing all that stuff there.' When shown the capsules, and before there was any indication of the nature of the contents, the defendant further stated, The inspectors,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Laursen
...889, 892, 11 L.Ed.2d 856). In Abel v. United States (1960) 362 U.S. 217, 241, 80 S.Ct. 683, 698, 4 L.Ed.2d 668; People v. Crayton (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 267, 269, 344 P.2d 627, and People v. Thomsen (1965) 239 Cal.App.2d 84, 89-90, 48 Cal.Rptr. 455, relied upon by the court on the former app......
-
People v. Lerhinan
...People v. VanEyk, 56 Cal.2d 471, 15 Cal.Rptr. 150, 364 P.2d 326, cert. den. 369 U.S. 824, 82 S.Ct. 838, 7 L.Ed.2d 788; People v. Crayton, 174 Cal.App.2d 267, 344 P.2d 627; State v. Mascarenas, 86 N.M. 692, 526 P.2d 1285; State v. Taggart, 14 Or.App. 408, 512 P.2d 1359, supra; State v. Cox, ......
-
People v. Thomsen
...right to its possession, and the hotel management freely gave its consent that the search be made.' (See also People v. Crayton, 174 Cal.App.2d 267, 269, 344 P.2d 627.) This independent investigation by Fresno police pointed to defendant; that he was being detained illegally by the San Fran......
-
People v. Laursen
...they had authority to consent to a search of it. (Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 80 S.Ct. 683, 4 L.Ed.2d 668; People v. Crayton, 174 Cal.App.2d 267, 269, 344 P.2d 627; People v. Thomsen, 239 Cal.App.2d 84, 89, 48 Cal.Rptr. Defendant complains of the identification procedures, which he......