People v. Kelsey
| Decision Date | 12 April 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5499 |
| Citation | 295 P.2d 462,140 Cal.App.2d 722 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Marie KELSEY, Defendant and Appellant. |
Forno & Umann, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Robert S. Rose, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Marie Kelsey was convicted in a court trial of the possession of marijuana in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code and was sentenced to serve 60 days in the county jail. She made a motion for new trial which was denied and appeals from that order and from the judgment. The cause was tried upon the evidence received at the preliminary examination and additional evidence at the time of trial. Defendant was represented by counsel but offered no evidence. Defendant is represented on the appeal by counsel other than the attorney who represented her at the trial.
There was evidence of the following facts. On March 28, 1955, a Los Angeles police officer and a state narcotics officer entered the apartment of the defendant on South Main Street in Los Angeles; defendant was seated at a desk at the far end of the room; she had in her hand what appeared to be a brown paper cigarette which she placed in her mouth; handcuffs were placed upon her; she was asked where the marijuana was, replied that she would tell if the handcuffs were removed; the officers said they would remove the handcuffs if she would tell them. She said it was in the top right-hand drawer of the desk; the officers opened the drawer and found 2 envelopes, one containing 11 brown paper wrapped cigarettes and the other 54 of the same. Defendant said she was not going to say that they belonged to her and was not going to say that they did not but that 'there's something more to this case than meets the eye.' The content of the cigarettes was identified by an expert in such matters as marijuana and the same was received in evidence.
At the conclusion of the receipt of evidence, the attorney for defendant stated 'I will offer no evidence except to point out to the court that there may be a question of unlawful search and seizure, though I am not going to stress the point; at this time we rest.'
Upon the hearing of the motion for new trial no affidavit was filed by the defendant but it was argued that a new trial should be granted for the purpose of the receipt of evidence by the People...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. People of State of California
...327; People v. Pruitt, 155 Cal.App.2d 585, 318 P.2d 552; People v. Brittain, 149 Cal.App.2d 201, 308 P.2d 38, and People v. Kelsey, 140 Cal.App.2d 722, 295 P.2d 462. The court concluded from its examination of the transcript that Nelson had deliberately by-passed the required state procedur......
-
People v. Magee
...occasions it is too late to do so on appeal. (See People v. Howard (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 428, 430, 310 P.2d 120; People v. Kelsey (1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 722, 723, 295 P.2d 462.) The same is true of other testimony which defendant now contends should not have been admitted, but to which he en......
-
State v. Kuznitz
...to the contrary it will be presumed that an entry of private premises by police officers was made in a legal manner. People v. Kelsey, 140 Cal.App.2d 722, 295 P.2d 462.' The burden of proof is therefore on defendant to establish that the officers executed the warrant illegally. I cannot fin......
-
People v. Posada
...an illegal search and seizure will not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a proper objection in the trial court. People v. Kelsey, 140 Cal.App.2d 722, 295 P.2d 462.' In People v. Jaquish, 170 Cal.App.2d 376, 379, 338 P.2d 974, 976, it is set forth: 'Moreover, the question of unlawful s......