People v. Hicks, Cr. 2891

• Decision Date: 26 November 1958
• Docket Number: Cr. 2891
• Citation: 165 Cal.App.2d 548,331 P.2d 1003
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Wilson HICKS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 1003

331 P.2d 1003

165 Cal.App.2d 548

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Wilson HICKS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 2891.

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Nov. 26, 1958.

Hearing Denied Jan. 21, 1959.

Charles J. Miller, Sacramento, for appellant.

Edmund G Brown, Atty.Gen., for respondent.

VAN DYKE, Presiding Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment by the court sitting without a jury. Appellant was charged by information with the crime of violation of Section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, possession of narcotics. The trial court found him guilty of having in his possession a narcotic drug known as amidone. Appellant's contentions are that certain evidence upon which the conviction was based was obtained by illegal search and seizure and that reversible error was committed when the court refused to compel disclosure of an informer's identity.

The first witness for the People was a chemist who testified that in an envelope presented to him there was, among other articles, a white powdery substance which on analysis proved to be amidone. The envelope and contents were marked for identification as People's Exhibit No. 1. The next witness was a State Narcotic Inspector, a Mr. Jerome Murphy. He testified as follows: On February 25, 1958, he saw appellant in Room No. 9 in the Odeon Hotel in Sacramento. He and a fellow officer searched appellant and his room but found nothing tending to show possession of narcotics. They placed appellant under arrest and took him to the hotel manager's office. There it developed that on the same floor on which appellant's room was located, there was a large closet or storage room, and that appellant had a key to it. The manager was asked to admit the officers to this room and went toward the room with Murphy's companion. Appellant then made a statement to Murphy. When Murphy's testimony had gone this far, appellant's counsel asked permission to cross-examine before Murphy told what appellant had said. On cross-examination it developed the officers had no warrant to arrest appellant. Counsel then objected to proof of the statements, asserting as grounds for his objection that statements made while appellant was detained under unlawful arrest were not admissible in evidence. Assuming the arrest unlawful, the statements, if voluntary, were admissible. Rogers v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 3, 10-11, 291 P.2d 929. Other than the detention under the alleged unlawful arrest, there was nothing in the evidence from which there could be inferred anything but a voluntary statement. The direct examination then continued and Murphy testified that he and appellant followed the others toward Room 13 and appellant said: 'Yes, I have some H in the room. I have about 4 capsules for my own use.' When they were in front of the door to Room No. 13, the door was found to be locked, but at that point appellant said the key was in a drawer in his room. The other officer then went to Room No. 9, obtained the key, came back and opened Room No. 13. Thereupon appellant said, 'I will show you where it is', and pointed to a box which contained the articles making up Exhibit No. 1. At the close of the People's evidence, Exhibit No. 1 was offered in evidence. Counsel for appellant said, 'I object to it', but stated no specific ground for his objection. The objection was properly overruled. There was no showing that appellant had exclusive control over Room 13, and the plain effect of the evidence is that the manager could and did authorize the entry and search. People v. Gorg, 45 Cal.2d 776, 783, 291 P.2d 469. Appellant made no objection and directed the officer to the place where the narcotic was kept. The court admitted the exhibit in evidence and the People rested. Appellant then took the stand in his own defense. He testified as follows: When the officers searched his own room in the hotel, Room No. 9, they found nothing. They took him down to the hotel office, where the landlord said: 'Did you bring your key down from the closet?' He replied he had not. An officer then asked him if he had another room. The landlord then asked what room they were talking about and the officer said, 'The closet.' The landlord then said that appellant had had the key to the closet...