People v. Hyden, Cr. 782
| Decision Date | 26 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 782 |
| Citation | 258 P.2d 1018,118 Cal.App.2d 744 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HYDEN. |
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., James Don Keller, Dist. Atty., and George McClenahan Deputy Dist. Atty., San Diego, for appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
The People have appealed from an order dismissing this action. The defendant was charged by information with the possession of a narcotic, morphine, in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. While a substitution of attorneys for the defendant was filed in this court, no brief on his behalf was filed.
At the preliminary examination there was evidence that about 1:00 o'clock on the morning of September 6, 1952, a waitress in a restaurant found a brown paper package on the seat of a booth where the defendant had been sitting. The defendant, and three other youths who were with him, had just left the booth when the waitress found the package. She opened the package which contained an eyedropper, a blackened spoon and two syringes. She called the police, who came in a few minutes and talked to the boys who were still around their car, which had not left the premises. The officers turned over this package with its contents to a chemist, who testified that from the articles in the package he recovered two milligrams of morphine. A bottle containing this morphine, except that portion used up in making tests, was introduced in evidence. There was sufficient evidence that these articles, which contained the morphine, had been in the possession of this defendant and he was held to answer.
An information was filed in the superior court, after which the defendant moved, under section 995 of the Penal Code, to have the information set aside on the ground that he had been committed without reasonable or probable cause. At the hearing the defendant's counsel contended that the evidence was insufficient to show possession at the time defendant was apprehended, and argued 'that he no longer possessed, that he abandoned it.' This motion was denied and the case was set for trial.
The case came on for trial before another judge. At the outset, the court asked the district attorney to state what he expected to prove. The district attorney stated that he expected to prove all the material allegations of the complaint, including the fact that the defendant did willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, on September 6, 1952, possess a certain narcotic, to wit, morphine. The court then asked 'What quantity of morphine do you expect to prove that the defendant possessed at the time here involved?' The district attorney said that he expected to prove a sufficient quantity as defined in the Health and Safety Code. The court asked him to be more specific as to the amount he expected to prove, and asked if the chemist had testified at the preliminary hearing as to the quantity of morphine found. When told that the chemist had testified that he had recovered two milligrams of morphine from these articles, the court asked whether the district attorney expected the chemist's testimony to be any different at the trial, or whether he expected to offer 'any additional proof as to the quantity involved in addition to what was produced at the preliminary hearing?' Receiving a negative reply the court asked to hear from the attorney for the defendant, who moved that the case be dismissed on the ground that the evidence would be insufficient, assuming that the People proved what the district attorney said they would. He then argued that the amount of morphine involved was so infinitesimally small that it would not support a conviction. After some discussion, the court asked the attorney for the defendant whether ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Park
...Co. (1919) 179 Cal. 621, 625-627, 178 P. 517; People v. Mason (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 317, 356, 7 Cal.Rptr. 627; People v. Hyden (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 744, 747-748, 258 P.2d 1018; People v. Main (1925) 75 Cal.App. 471, 473, 242 P. Suppression of Evidence: Appellant's second major attack is di......
-
People v. Wilson
... ... Amis cites People v. Cole, 113 Cal.App.2d 253, 248 P.2d 141; People v. Hyden, 118 Cal.App.2d 744, 258 P.2d 1018; and Anderson as supportive of his contention that a conviction for a sale or possession of an infinitesimal ... ...
-
People v. Karmelich
... ... In that case it distinguished, but did not overrule, such cases as People v. Sales (1936) 17 Cal.App.2d 75, 61 P.2d 771, People v. Hyden (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 744, 258 ... P.2d 1018, People v. Anderson (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 510, 18 Cal.Rptr. 793, and People v. Thomas (1962) 210 ... ...
-
People v. Thomas
...of the defendant: People v. Salas, 17 Cal.App.2d 75, 61 P.2d 771; People v. Jones, 113 Cal.App.2d 567, 248 P.2d 771; People v. Hyden, 118 Cal.App.2d 744, 258 P.2d 1018; People v. Anderson, 199 Cal.App.2d 510, 18 Cal.Rptr. 793; People v. Marich, 201 Cal.App.2d 462, 19 Cal.Rptr. 909; People v......