People v. Hill

• Decision Date: 15 March 1967
• Docket Number: Cr. 12793
• Citation: 249 Cal.App.2d 453,57 Cal.Rptr. 551
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Robert HILL, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 551

57 Cal.Rptr. 551

249 Cal.App.2d 453

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Robert HILL, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 12793.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

March 15, 1967.

William Robert Hill, in pro. per.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Raymond M. Momboisse and Anthony S. Dick, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

FOURT, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from 'the judgment of commitment (sic) * * *' of defendant as a narcotics addict.

On May 30, 1966, Sergeant Trotsky, of the Los Angeles Police Department, received information from a confidential reliable informant that James Gleason and his wife were users and sellers of narcotics from a residence in Van Nuys. The next night at about 9:00 p.m. Sergeant Trotsky and Sergeant Olson approached the front door of the house in question and at about that time defendant opened the door from within and was about to leave the place. Sergeant Trotsky showed his badge and said, 'Police officer' whereupon defendant whirled around and started back into the house at a rapid pace. Sergeant Trotsky saw defendant's right hand go to his mouth with a small object. He pursued defendant into the house and saw defendant's right hand come out of defendant's right pants pocket and another motion to his mouth followed by a swallowing motion. The officers, at first, started to restrain defendant, then decided to let him swallow whatever it was he had in his mouth.

Defendant was placed under arrest. Sergeant Trotsky looked at defendant's arms and saw numerous puncture marks in the veins; he also saw that defendant's eyes had constricted pupils and did not react to light flashed into them. When left alone for a short time, defendant went into a slumberous state. Sergeant Trotsky, an expert in the field of narcotics, came to the conclusion that defendant was using narcotics illegally and took him to a station where defendant was examined further. Sergeant Trotsky came to the conclusion that defendant was a user of narcotics and that at that time defendant was under the influence of narcotics.

At about 3:00 a.m. on June 1, 1966, defendant was admitted to the jail infirmary and later Doctor Lavelle, a physician assigned to the infirmary, examined defendant. Doctor Lavelle concluded that defendant was then an active narcotics user; that he was addicted to the use of narcotics and that he was then in the early stages of narcotics withdrawal. During the examination by Doctor Lavelle defendant admitted that he had been using narcotics for years and that he had had his last narcotics within two days, that his habit ran to about $20 every two days. The doctor calculated that this meant that defendant was consuming about four capsules per day and that defendant was emotionally dependent upon the narcotics.

Procedurally, the record discloses that on May 31, 1966, an application was made for the admission of defendant to the Los Angeles County Jail Infirmary pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 3100.6. On June 1, 1966, an affidavit of Doctor F. E. Wetzel was made wherein it was stated that a further examination was necessary to determine whether defendant was an addict, or was about to become such. Later, on June 1, 1966, Doctor Lavelle examined defendant and in an affidavit stated that he believed defendant to be addicted to the use of narcotic drugs, 'or by reason of the repeated use of narcotics is in imminent danger of becoming addicted thereto and unless confined is likely to injure himself or become a menace to the public.' The doctor set forth in some detail way he entertained such belief, i.e., defendant's admission to such use, symptoms of withdrawal, high stepping gait, slowness in responses, repeated yawns, pupils dilated and reacting sluggishly to light, catarrhal nasal discharge, charge, marked secretion of mucous membranes of mouth, upper extremities showing marked tracks, right arm showing about 20 recent puncture marks over old scarred tissue.

The affidavits were referred to the district attorney who, on June 2, 1966, petitioned the superior court to commit defendant as a narcotics addict. On that date the court issued an order of detention pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 3102. On June 9, 1966, an order setting the time of the hearing and ordering defendant to appear was filed. On June 20, 1966, at a hearing where defendant was represented by counsel, the court found defendant to be a drug addict within the meaning of section 3100 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and committed him to the Director of Corrections for placement. Defendant then demanded a jury trial and the same was set for July 6, 1966, the defendant to remain on bail.

On July 6, 1966, the public defender was appointed to represent defendant in the trial. On July 13, 1966, the matter came on for trial. A stipulation was entered into between counsel with reference to the trial. ¹

A jury was impanelled and the case was tried. Defendant testified that on the occasion when he first saw Sergeant Trotsky he was swallowing peanuts, that at one time he was a narcotics addict, that he used narcotics periodically (he could not say just how frequently he used narcotics), that the last time he had a 'fix' was the weekend prior to his arrest, that when he did inject heroin into his body he usually did so into his arm, that he had no craving for narcotics, that the last time he 'fixed' he used 'two, three caps,' that he had previously been convicted of a felony. On July 14, 1966, the jury returned a verdict wherein it was found that defendant 'is by reason of repeated use of narcotics in imminent danger of becoming a narcotic addict.' Upon being polled, it was ascertained that the verdict was unanimous. The judge found that the defendant was in imminent danger of becoming a narcotic addict and ordered defendant committed to the Director of Corrections in accordance with the commitment made on June 20, 1966. A timely notice of appeal was filed.

Appellant now asserts that there was no probable cause to arrest him, that he was denied a fair and impartial trial, that the court had no jurisdiction to sentence him...