People v. Ferguson

Decision Date06 May 1968
Docket NumberCr. 13787
Citation68 Cal.Rptr. 431,261 Cal.App.2d 807
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Edward FERGUSON, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

John Edward Ferguson, in pro. per., and Bruce M. Margolin, Sherman Oaks, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Richard Tanzer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

FOURT, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of selling marijuana.

In an information filed in Los Angeles on June 2, 1966, Ferguson was charged in count I with selling marijuana on February 28, 1966, in count II with selling marijuana on March 9, 1966, in count III with selling marijuana on April 15, 1966, and in count IV he was charged with codefendant Joan Reeves with possessing marijuana on April 15, 1966. Subsequently the charge against Reeves was dismissed. Defendant pleaded not guilty and in a non-jury trial he was found guilty as charged in counts I, II, and III and not guilty as charged in count IV. At the time of sentence, proceedings were suspended and defendant was placed on probation for five years, a part of the terms being that he spend the first six months in the county jail, that he not use or possess narcotics or narcotics paraphernalia, that he not associate with narcotics users or sellers and that he obey all laws, orders, rules and regulations of the probation department of the court. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. Pursuant to Rule 12a of Rules of Court the original file in the Superior Court proceeding is transmitted to this court.

A resume of some of the facts is as follows: On or about February 28, 1966, Deputy Sheriff Burkett, working as an undercover officer, at about 4:35 p.m. in the company of William Cadoo, went to defendant's house in Woodland Hills, a high-income-residential area. There Cadoo introduced defendant to Officer Burkett. Defendant said, 'What can I do for you?' and Cadoo and Officer Burkett each stated that they would like a 'can.' Defendant left the room and returned with two wax paper bags under his shirt. Officer Burkett handed defendant $10 and Cadoo did likewise. The $10 Cadoo had was previously handed to him by Officer Burkett. Defendant handed to Officer Burkett and Cadoo each a wax paper bag containing marijuana. Officer Burkett talked with defendant about the purchase of a kilo of marijuana and defendant responded that he could not get Officer Burkett a kilo but possibly could get a half-pound in a short time.

On March 9, 1966, at about 7:20 p.m. Officer Burkett and Cadoo again went to defendant's house and were admitted by Joan Reeves who apparently was living with defendant at the house. In about five minutes, defendant entered the house. Defendant walked into another room and shortly thereafter returned and handed six wax paper bags containing marijuana to Cadoo. Cadoo handed three of the bags to Officer Burkett in the presence of defendant. Officer Burkett handed defendant $50, inquired if that was the correct amount, and defendant responded that it was.

On April 15, 1966, at about 7:50 p.m. Officer Burkett went to defendant's house and was met at the front door by defendant who apparently invited him into the house. Officer Burkett was seated on a couch and defendant walked into a bedroom area and returned shortly with eight wax paper bags containing marijuana. The officer paid defendant $60 and the bags were handed to him. The serial numbers of the money used by Officer Burkett in the purchase had been recorded previously. Officer Burkett left defendant's residence, went to a car and turned the contraband over to Officer Grow. The two officers returned to defendant's house and were admitted by defendant. Officer Burkett placed defendant under arrest. A search of defendant revealed the $60; the serial numbers thereof corresponded with the list of numbers in the possession of Officer Grow. Officer Burkett had talked with defendant on the telephone on March 18, 1966, at about 10:20 a.m.; on March 20, 1966, at 1 p.m.; on April 3, 1966, at 1:35 p.m.; on April 8, 1966, at 11:10 a.m.; on April 12, 1966, at 9:20 a.m.; on April 13, 1966; on April 14, 1966, at 2:55 p.m.; and on April 15, 1966, at 4 p.m. Defendant never did give Officer Burkett any reason for not dealing with him in marijuana transactions other than that he was out of stock on some of the occasions. Officer Burkett never told defendant that he was physically ill and needed the marijuana or L.S.D. or any other substance.

Defendant testified in his own behalf and said with reference to the first transaction that he had told Cadoo that he could get him some marijuana, that he did get some and that he did sell it as charged--that he thought he was dealing with a friend. Defendant testified with reference to the second transaction that he had run across some marijuana and had told Cadoo and Officer Burkett that he had some and made the sale for $50. He further testified with reference to the third transaction that he had run across some marijuana and had sold 'eight' to Officer Burkett, that he thought Officer Burkett was a user and he was just doing him a favor. He admitted on cross-examination that the marijuana in question was his. Typically, as it frequently occurs, defendant when asked whether he knew the name of the man from whom he had purchased the marijuana said that he did not, that he did not know where or how to reach him and that he just happened by on occasions.

The probation report in this case indicates that defendant admitted to the daily use of marijuana since October of 1...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Gaulden
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 9, 1974
    ...be expected to extricate him by magic. Trial counsel did all he could with the facts he had to work with. (People v. Ferguson (1968), 261 Cal.App.2d 807, 810--811, 68 Cal.Rptr. 431.) In Griffin v. California (1965), 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 1233, 14 L.Ed.2d 106, 110, the Court stat......
  • State v. Swain
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 1974
    ...by the police officer or state agent to commit the crime is evidence of predisposition to commit the crime. People v. Ferguson, 261 Cal.App.2d 807, 68 Cal.Rptr. 431 (1968); People v. McSmith, 23 Ill.2d 87, 178 N.E.2d 641 (1961); People v. Ovalle, 10 Mich.App. 540, 159 N.W.2d 847 (1968). Eve......
  • People v. Stokley
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 29, 1968
    ...strategy; here defendant has failed to show that any witness in fact existed who was not allowed to testify. (See People v. Ferguson, 261 A.C.A. 953, 956--957, 68 Cal.Rptr. 431; People v. Tomita, 260 A.C.A. 88, 93--94, 66 Cal.Rptr. 4. Other contentions of defendant. One is that he was denie......
  • Story v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • January 10, 1978
    ...in this case. The appellant readily and without reluctance accepted the proposals for the respective sales." People v. Ferguson, 261 Cal.App.2d 807, 68 Cal.Rptr. 431 (1968). Likewise, in the instant case, the officers did not pressure appellant into participating in the transaction. Compare......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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