People v. Flores, Cr. 5948
| Decision Date | 20 November 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5948 |
| Citation | 155 Cal.App.2d 347,318 P.2d 65 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Henry V. FLORES, Defendant and Appellant. |
Ernest Best, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
As the result of a non-jury trial of consolidated cases defendant was convicted of burglary, and of possession of heroin (§ 11500, Health & Safety Code) with a previous conviction of the same offense. The prior conviction was admitted. This appeal is taken from the judgment in the narcotics case and order denying a new trial therein. The contention is that the evidence is insufficient.
On December 6, 1956, the police were searching for defendant in connection with the burglary upon which he was later convicted. They called at 1149 Stone Street in the city of Los Angeles, which defendant testified was his mother's residence but not his own. In response to a knock on the door defendant appeared, identified himself and was immediately arrested on suspicion of burglary. The policy entered and searched the premises, being interested primarily in finding some keys which had been used in perpetrating the burglary. The keys were found, and in the search considerable heroin and equipment for its use were also unconvered. In a jacket in a closet the officers found 41 capsules of heroin; also in the jacket were two papers which were blank applications connected with a housing project, one of which bore defendant's name; under the wash basin in the bathroom the officers found a portion of a spoon wrapped in brown paper, a medicine dropper, a piece of green plastic containing a hypodermic type needle. Confronted with the narcotic, defendant, previously convicted of a narcotic felony, denied that it was his or that he had any connection with it; he admitted that the papers were his, but said the jacket belonged to his brother who had been in prison for the past nine months. Asked about the equipment found in the bathroom defendant first denied and then admitted that it was his. Later, at the police station, he stated that the heroin was his, not his mother's. He testified at the trial that one Wells (or Burns), with whom he was found to have been acting in the burglaries, was a narcotic user.
The emphasis of appellant's argument is upon the proposition that the evidence does not show possession with knowledge of the character of the drug. Defendant did not claim ignorance of its character, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kanos
...else may have had the opportunity to deposit the contraband there. (People v. Gory, 28 Cal.2d 450, 457, 170 P.2d 433; People v. Flores, 155 Cal.App.2d 347, 349, 318 P.2d 65; Frazzini v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.App.3d 1005, 1016, 87 Cal.Rptr. 32; People v. Van Valkenburg, 111 Cal.App.2d 337, 3......
-
People v. Roth
...of contraband by defendant may be drawn from the presence of the narcotic in his coat--among his 'personal effects.' (People v. Flores, 155 Cal.App.2d 347, 349, 318 P.2d 65; People v. Mateo, 171 Cal.App.2d 850, 855, 341 P.2d 768; People v. Villanueva, 220 Cal.App.2d 443, 450, 33 Cal.Rptr. 8......
-
Frazzini v. Superior Court
...282, 287--289, 10 Cal.Rptr. 823, 359 P.2d 255; People v. Jackson, 198 Cal.App.2d 698, 704--705, 18 Cal.Rptr. 214; People v. Flores, 155 Cal.App.2d 347, 348--349, 318 P.2d 65.) To support a reasonable belief and strong, conscientious suspicion that marijuana or dangerous drugs would be found......
-
People v. Aleria
...and obviously under his control. Exclusive possession or control by the suspect is not essential to a valid search. People v. Flores, 155 Cal.App.2d 347, 349, 318 P.2d 65; People v. Ross, 149 Cal.App.2d 287, 289, 308 P.2d 37; People v. Van Valkenburg, 111 Cal.App.2d 337, 340, 244 P.2d 750; ......