People v. Hightower
| Citation | 11 Cal.Rptr. 198,189 Cal.App.2d 309 |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 1565 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jackie HIGHTOWER, Defendant and Appellant. |
Russell E. Parsons and Harry E. Weiss, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Philip C. Griffin, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from judgments of conviction on two counts of unlawful possession of narcotics (Count one, marijuana; count two, heroin), and from the order denying defendant's motion for a new trial.
Defendant makes no contention that the facts proved were insufficient to support the judgment. It was stipulated by both the defendant personally and by his counsel that the officers had reasonable cause to search the auto in which the narcotics were found. The reason for this stipulation was to avoid the necessity of revealing to the jury the crime which gave rise to the search, to-wit: forgery (to which defendant pleaded guilty and for which he was sentenced on the same day as the sentence in the case here at bar). Defendant also admitted a charge of prior felony conviction of robbery. We therefore find it unnecessary to relate the complete details of the arrest and the finding of the narcotics. In general substance, those facts necessary to a discussion of the criticisms made by defendant on this appeal are as follows:
Approximately one hour before noon on Thursday, January 7, 1960, defendant and a companion, named Cole, were arrested while traveling in an automobile on a downtown street of San Bernardino. At the police station, observation of the two led the officers to suspicion that both were narcotics users and that both were then under the influence of narcotics. A search of the auto in which the two had been found, revealed marijuana concealed in a package behind the left-hand side of the instrument board, two teaspoons in the glove compartment, and heroin, an eyedropper and a hypodermic needle concealed in another package behind the right-hand side of the instrument board. Tests by an expert chemist later confirmed the identity of the narcotics as above named.
Late in the afternoon of the same day, investigations by the officers had reveraled sufficient facts for an intelligent interrogation of defendant. On questioning, defendant admitted the purchase by him of both narcotics, gave conflicting statements as to place of purchase but they were apparently acquired from different sources at different times. He denied the use of narcotics that day. He consented orally and in writing to a nalline test. He was taken to the county hospital and the test was there administered by a qualified doctor, during the time between 5 p. m. and 5:30 p. m. The doctor observed puncture marks along the veins on the inner surface of both forearms of defendant. The test revealed, in the doctor's opinion, the recent use by defendant of a narcotic, morphine derivative, which would include heroin.
Defendant contends that his statements and the nalline test were not voluntary. The officers and the doctor testified in detail that defendant's statements were given and the test was made without any physical or mental compulsion or coercion of any kind, and were completely voluntary. Defendant's testimony, partly conflicting with the testimony of the officers and the doctor, was rejected by the jury. The weighing of the evidence was the prerogative of the jury. We cannot, on appeal, reweigh it. As was said in People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678, 681, 104 P.2d 778, 780:
"* * * We must assume in favor of the verdict the existence of every fact which the jury could have reasonably deduced from the evidence, and then determine whether such facts are sufficient to support the verdict." See also People v. Love, 53 Cal.2d 843, 850[1-2], 3, Cal.Rptr. 665.
The test appears to have been administered under adequately antiseptic and approved medical precautions. People v. Duroncelay, 48 Cal.2d 776, 770[2-3 a], 312 P.2d 690.
There is no suggestion that the court's instructions to the jury were erroneous or inadequate. We find no merit in defendant's contention.
The second contention of defendant is that he was not taken before a magistrate within the time provided by law. Penal Code, section 825, provides, in this respect, that 'The defendant must in all cases be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Zavala
...provided), that the results of such tests, voluntarily taken by the defendants, were admissible in evidence. In People v. Hightower, 189 Cal.App.2d 309, 11 Cal.,Rptr. 198, a case involving a prosecution for illegal possession of narcotics, the results of the Nalline test given with the defe......
-
People v. Ross
...holidays in the calculation of the period of time within which a defendant must be taken before a magistrate (People v. Hightower, 189 Cal.App.2d 309, 312, 11 Cal.Rptr. 198); and Saturdays are holidays in the municipal court under Government Code, section 72305. (People v. Mitchell, 209 Cal......
-
People v. Mitchell
...no showing of prejudice, which is necessary if defendant is going to attack his conviction on this ground. (People v. Hightower, 189 Cal.App.2d 309, 312[3-4], 11 Cal.Rptr. 198; People v. Lollis, supra, 177 Cal.App.2d 665, 671, 2 Cal.Rptr. 420; People v. Smith, 175 Cal.App.2d 396, 401[7-8], ......
-
People v. Robinson
...defendant was accorded a full and fair trial, and that he had an attorney in ample time to prepare for trial. People v. Hightower (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 309, 313, 11 Cal.Rptr. 198; see also People v. Crooker (1956) 47 Cal.2d 348, 303 P.2d 753. We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that ......