People v. Cuellar
| Decision Date | 07 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4725 |
| Citation | 242 P.2d 694,110 Cal.App.2d 273 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CUELLAR. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Gerald Friedman, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Dan Kaufmann, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This appeal is prosecuted by defendant from a judgment of conviction for violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code rendered against him after trial by the court sitting without a jury.
Since appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, and also maintains that the corpus delicti was not established prior to the admission of his extra-judicial conversations with police officers, it becomes necessary to epitomize the evidence received at the trial.
In that regard the record reflects that on April 29, 1951, Ronald David Griffin, an 11 year old school boy was playing baseball with a young friend at Evergreen playground in the city of Los Angeles. Ronald noticed a person burying a package under the ground and that after placing the package in the ground this person 'put a pile of leaves, a little bit of dirt over it'. The witness testified he 'was not quite positive' that the appellant was that man 'but almost'. To the witness the package appeared to be 'a little bit of white stuff and it looked like money'. After the person deposited the package as aforesaid he walked back to a crowd of some thirteen or fourteen boys. Later on Ronald was playing marbles on the playground and he told his friend to 'shoot' up to the place where the package was placed, with which request his friend complied. Ronald picked up the package, put it in his pocket and delivered it to the director of the playground. The witness stated that the place where he picked up the package was the same spot at which defendant had placed it and that he was 'almost' sure of this fact. The package contained cigarettes wrapped in paper. Between the time that he saw the package deposited and the time that he picked it up, no other person went over to the spot where the package had been deposited. The playground director called the police and delivered the package in question to them. These officers placed defendant under arrest on the Evergreen playground. They took him to Central Police Station where they engaged him in conversation. According to the testimony of the officers all of defendant's statements were given freely and voluntarily. The officers showed him the cigarettes and asked him if they belonged to him. He admitted they were his and that he hid them under a tree on the playground. He stated that when it started to rain he went back to get them and found that somebody had taken them. The officers asked him where he got the cigarettes and he said that he found the 'stuff' in a sack and that he rolled them. He was asked what he intended to do with them and he said his intention was to smoke them, and that he got a 'kick' out of them.
The cigarettes were delivered by one of the officers to the property division of the Los Angeles Police Department in an envelope which he sealed with wax in which he imprinted his right thumb print. The package was subsequently opened by a police chemist who analyzed the contents and found them to be nineteen marijuana cigarettes.
Defendant took the stand in his own defense, admitted the conversation with the police officers, but stated that he was struck twice by an officer and that he made the statement only because 'I thought I would be hit more and I didn't want to be bruised up any more'.
In rebuttal the prosecution introduced the testimony of the arresting officers. Officer Abney denied that either he or any of his fellow officers struck the defendant or made any threats against him, that the only physical contact he had with defendant was to take hold of the latter's arm when he led him away to the police car.
Officer Halloran testified that defendant was in his custody at all times between the time of the arrest and the conversation; that no force was used on defendant and that no one struck him or threatened him.
Appellant's contention that the trial judge erred in receiving into evidence the extra-judicial confession and conversations of the former because the corpus delicti had not been established by proof independent of such statements, cannot be sustained.
To prove a prima facie case of the corpus delicti here, all that was necessary was to show a reasonable probability fo the unlawful possession of marijuana by a person. To this extent the evidence clearly showed the illegal possession in some one of the narcotic in question. It was not necessary to prove appellant's connection with the marijuana in order to establish the essential elements necessary to prove the corpus delicti. It is sufficient if the proof establishing the corpus delicti be of a substantial character. A reading of the testimony hereinbefore set forth satisfies us that the corpus delicti was proven in this case without recourse to the extra-judicial statements of appellant. Therefore, such statements were properly admitted, People v. Mehaffey, 32 Cal.2d 535, 545, 197 P.2d 12; People v. Leary, 28 Cal.2d 740, 745, 172 P.2d 41; People v. Chan Chaun, 41 Cal.App.2d 586, 589, 107 P.2d 455; People v. Smith, 100 Cal.App.2d 162, 165, 223 P.2d 82; People v. One 1947 Oldsmobile Club Sedan, 90 Cal.App.2d 848, 204 P.2d 104.
With regard to his contention that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the conviction appellant recognizes the established rule that an appellate tribunal will not reverse a judgment of conviction upon the ground herein urged unless it be made clearly to appear that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conclusion reached by the trier of facts, People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.2d 778. He contends however, that the evidence herein was in sufficient to connect him with the narcotics in question. He first assails the testimony of the witness Ronald David Griffin, the 11 year old boy. He asserts that the testimony of this witness was received without in any manner testing his qualifications as a witness. The answer to this contention is found in subdivision 2, section 1880 of the Code of Civil Procedure. And even though this witness had been under ten years of age there can be little if any question from a reading of his direct and cross-examination, that he met all the qualifications of competency required of witnesses under the age of ten years.
Appellant also urges the claimed weakness in the testimony of the boy as to identity of the former....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lutz
...471 F.D 647 (2 Cir. 1973); People v. Molarius, 213 Cal.App.2d 10, 28 Cal.Rptr. 541, 545 (D.Ct.App.1963); People v. Cuellar,110 Cal.App.2d 273, 242 P.2d 694, 696 (D.Ct.App.1952); Smallwood v. State,114 Ga.App. 459, 151 S.E.2d 789, 790 (Ct.App.1966); People v. Burke, 131 Ill.App.2d 76, 266 N.......
-
People v. Birch
...People v. Moller, 177 Cal.App.2d 379, 382, 2 Cal.Rptr. 223; People v. Basco, 121 Cal.App.2d 794, 796, 264 P.2d 88; People v. Cuellar, 110 Cal.App.2d 273, 278, 242 P.2d 694. The identity of the perpetrator of a crime is no part of the corpus delicti. People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 624, 234......
-
People v. Calderon
...probability of unlawful possession by someone.' (People v. Lawton, 186 Cal.App.2d 834, 836-837, 9 Cal.Rptr. 122, 124; People v. Cuellar, 110 Cal.App.2d 273, 242 P.2d 694.) The evidence previously summarized adequately meets this requirement without reference to the extrajudicial statements ......
-
People v. Showers
...place possession may be imputed if he has not abandoned the narcotic and no other person has obtained possession. (People v. Cuellar, 110 Cal.App.2d 273, 242 P.2d 694 (defendant buried the narcotic on a public playground covering the hiding place with leaves); People v. Bigelow, 104 Cal.App......