People v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 11 February 1958 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5978 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ernest JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
Lionel Richman, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The defendant herein was charged, in an information filed in Los Angeles county, with a violation of section 11500, Health and Safety Code, in that on or about January 2, 1957, he had in his possession a preparation of heroin. The information further set forth that the defendant had been convicted of a felony in January, 1950, in Alameda county and had served a term in prison therefor, and that he had been convicted of the crime of violation of section 11500, Health and Safety Code, a felony, in Los Angeles county in April, 1950, in had served a term in prison therefor. The defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the prior convictions. A trial by jury was waived, and by stipulation of counsel the plaintiff's case in chief was submitted on the transcript of the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing and the exhibits refered to therein. At the trial the defendant testified in his own behalf and stated under oath that he had been convicted of the prior felonies charged in the information, in fact, that he had just been released from prison on the prior narcotics charge.
After the trial the judge found the defendant guilty as charged and found that it was true that he had twice previously been convicted of a felony. Defendant made an application for probation and a probation officer's report was ordered. At the time of sentence defendant's counsel requested the judge, 'in the interest of justice,' to strike the priors, to the end as he said, * * *' The judge then struck the first prior felony conviction, denied the defendant's application for probation, and sentenced the defendant to the state prison.
This appeal is from the judgment of conviction.
The facts are substantially as follows: G. W. Beckman, a member of the Los Angeles police department, at about 8:20 o'clock p. m. on January 2, 1957, talked with an informer he had known for about four years. The informant, a user of narcotics, had been used by the officer previously and had given the officer reliable information upon which arrests had been made. The informant gave the officer the description of a man who was 'dealing narcotics' a few minutes before their conversation. The informant stated that the man, who became the defendant herein, was wearing a grey hat with a black band and an orange shirt, that he limped, and that he was standing in front of the Morris Hotel, which was about a block away. The officer saw the defendant a few minutes thereafter in front of the hotel where he stayed for a short time and then started to walk away. The officer followed the defendant until he went into an alley-way, and then the officer maneuvered the police car with the bright lights on the defendant, got out of the car and told the defendant he was under arrest 'for suspicion of narcotics.'
The defendant was searched at once and in his right-hand coat pocket was found a white paper bindle. When shown the bindle the defendant was asked if he had any 'more stuff' and the defendant replied that he did not have anything more, and said, The contents of the paper bindle contained a preparation of heroin. On cross-examination, the officer was asked by defendant's counsel if he knew that the Morris Hotel was 'a very common place for narcotics to be peddled,' and the officer replied, 'Yes.'
Appellant contends that (1) the arrest was without a warrant and was not based upon reasonable cause; (2) the court erred in not requiring the officer to disclose the name of his informer, and (3) the court committed error in not excluding the evidence obtained at the time of the arrest.
Section 836, Penal Code, provides in part:
This court appropriately said, in Trowbridge v. Superior Court, 144 Cal.App.2d 13, at pages 17-18, 300 P.2d 222, at page 225:
'It is settled that reasonable cause to justify an arrest may consist of information obtained from others and is not limited to evidence that would necessarily be admitted at the trial on the issue of guilt. (Citing cases.)
'It was said in People v. King, 140 Cal.App.2d [1, 6] 294 P.2d 972, 975:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Priestly v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco
...or such testimony must be struck on proper motion of the defendant. Any holdings or implications to the contrary in People v. Johnson, 157 Cal.App.2d 555, 321 P.2d 35; People v. Salcido, 154 Cal.App.2d 520, 522, 316 P.2d 639; People v. Moore, 154 Cal.App.2d 43, 46-47, 315 P.2d 357; People v......
-
People v. Melody
...or such testimony must be struck on defendant's motion; and disapproved any holdings or implications to the contrary in People v. Johnson, 157 Cal.App.2d 555, 321 P.2d 35; People v. Salcido, 154 Cal.App.2d 520, 316 P.2d 639; People v. Moore, 154 Cal.App.2d 43, 315 P.2d 357; People v. Marino......
- Campbell v. Campbell
-
People v. Macias
...Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327; People v. Romero, 156 Cal.App.2d 48, 318 P.2d 835; People v. Johnson, 157 Cal.App.2d 555, 321 P.2d 35. A similar case is Willson v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 291, 295, 294 P.2d The accusatory pleading alleged prior convicti......