People v. Lawrence
| Decision Date | 26 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3285 |
| Citation | 149 Cal.App.2d 435,308 P.2d 821 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Jesse LAWRENCE, Defendant and Appellant. |
Arthur D. Klang, San Francisco, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., of the State of Cal., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Victor Griffith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Defendant was indicted on three counts of violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. Count I charged a sale of heroin on December 14, 1955; Count II charged a sale of heroin on January 19, 1956, and Count III charged possession of heroin on January 19, 1956. It was alleged that defendant had previously suffered three convictions, one for burglary and two for violations of section 11500. Defendant's motion to set aside the indictment was denied. Defendant initially pleaded not guilty to all counts and previous convictions. Before selection of a jury, defendant admitted the prior convictions. Defendant was found guilty on all three counts.
The defendant has alleged seven grounds of appeal. They are (1) the court erred in admitting testimony of an officer concerning a telephone conversation between defendant and an informer which was overheard by means of an amplifier and extension cord; (2) that the arrest without a warrant was illegal; (3) that the search and seizure without a warrant was unlawful and within the exclusionary rule of the Cahan case, People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905; (4) that the court erred in not submitting the question of the reasonableness of the arrest and the legality of the search and seizure to the jury; (5) the court committed error in not requiring the officers to disclose the name of the informant during the voir dire examination; (6) the court erred in not requiring the officers to disclose the name of the informant at the trial before the jury; (7) it was error for the court to refuse to allow a witness produced by defendant, whom the alleged to be the informant, to testify. The numerous grounds of appeal require a rather detailed statement of the facts to provide proper background for a discussion of each question presented.
Inspector George Olsen testified that he was present in the State Building on December 14, 1955, when a known informant placed a telephone call to Evergreen 6-5633. The party at the other end said, 'Hello.' The informant asked, 'Hello, is this you, Jesse?' The other party said, 'Yes'. The informant said, 'Is anything happening?' The other party said, 'Yes.' The informant said, 'Can I get anything?' The other party said, 'Yes, come on over.' Inspector Olsen identified Jesse Lawrence as the recipient of the call, and recognized him by his voice. The informant was searched, his clothes removed, all pockets searched, and the linings removed from his trousers. Inspector Olsen, Inspector Noel and the informant proceeded to Spruce and Sacramento Streets where the informant was handed $200 in identified State funds. Then the inspector observed the informant walk directly to a green 1951 Packard, in which defendant was sitting behind the wheel. The informant and defendant conversed for approximately two minutes. Then, they went into 451 Spruce Street. Approximately one and one-half hours latter defendant, his wife and the informer came out of 451 Spruce Street. Defendant and his wife got in their car. The informer headed north on Spruce. The informer met Inspectors Noel and Olsen at Sacramento and Spruce, and there surrendered to Inspector Noel a rubber container in which there was a white powder later identified as 210 grains of heroin. The inspectors returned the informant to the State Building. They searched him and found none of the money.
Inspector Louis Noel testified that he was present in a public telephone booth at Washington and Broderick Streets on January 19, 1956, when the informant called Evergreen 6-5633. Noel dialed the number. He monitored the conversation through an amplifier which he placed over 'the listening end' of the receiver. The informant said, 'Hello, is that you, Jesse?' The other party replied, 'Yes.' The informant asked, 'Can I get anything?' The other party said, 'Yes, come on by.' Officer Noel identified the other party as Jesse Lawrence, the defendant. Then the informant was taken to a State vehicle and searched. No contraband was found. He was given $206 in marked State-identified bills. The informant and several officers proceeded to the vicinity of Sacramento and Spruce Streets. The informant went to 451 Spruce, in a building containing three flats. He went up the stairs to the door at 451 and stood for a moment or two. Defendant raised a window facing on Sacramento Street. The two men apparently conversed for a short while. The informant descended the stairs and defendant dropped what appeared to be a key down to the informant. The informant picked up the key, went up to the doorway at 451 Spruce, opened the door and went in. Over an hour later, the informer came out of 451 Spruce Street. He entered a blue-colored taxi-cab which proceeded toward California Street. Noel contacted other State officers by radio and informed them of the direction the taxi was proceeding.
Officer Rinken testified that on January 19, 1956, he was in contact with Inspector Noel from the time the informer went into 451 Spruce Street. Sometime later, he was advised to look for the informant in a taxicab. He spotted him in a blue DeSoto cab near Spruce and California Streets. He followed the informer to the intersection of Euclid, where he got out of the taxi-cab and gave Rinken a rubber contraceptive containing a white powder which was identified as 190 grains of heroin.
Inspector Noel testified that after the informant left the defendant's premises he observed Gerald Williams and defendant's wife, Norvelle Lawrence, leave 451 Spruce Street. Noel radioed Officer Rinken to take Williams into custody. Noel searched Williams and found neither narcotics nor any of the marked bills given to the informer. The officers had Williams return with them to 451 Spruce and ring the door bell. Defendant opened the door. The officers identified themselves and announced that defendant was under arrest for sale of narcotics. Defendant tried to close the door and it was necessary to forcibly take him into custody. Inspector Noel testified that after subduing defendant, he proceeded up the stairs, where he was met by Inspector Chasten, who showed him a container full of white powder which contained 291 grains of heroin. Noel found a white paper containing one grain of heroin on a cocktail table, and $170 of the money which had been given to the informer in a small cardboard box on a dresser next to defendant's bed. Defendant admitted it was his money, and said he gambled. Defendant admitted that the container which Inspector Chasten had given to Noel was his, and that he used it for his asthma. Noel observed that the number of the telephone was Evergreen 6-5633.
Objection was sustained to questions by defense counsel seeking to elicit the name of the informant. Defendant then produced Willie Dandridge, an inmate at San Quentin prison, and alleged he was the informant. Dandridge was permitted to testify on voir dire and admitted that he was at defendant's house but was uncertain as to the date. He admitted that defendant threw a key out of the window to him; that he left defendant's premises in a blue DeSoto cab; he denied that he gave money to or purchased narcotics from the defendant. He denied he gave a package of narcotics to Inspector Noel on December 14, 1955, or to officer Rinken on January 19, 1956. He denied he had informed officer Noel or any other state officer that narcotics could be or had been purchased from defendant. On cross-examination Dandridge denied that he had ever been in the State Building or had agreed to help Inspector Noel. Dandridge did admit that Gerald Williams was at defendant's apartment the day he was there. The defendant asked to call Willie Dandridge as his witness at the trial before the jury but the district attorney objected and the court sustained the objection. The defendant testified on his own behalf and categorically denied any and all sales of narcotics. He denied any telephone conversations with the informant and he testified that the officers threatened him and actually used force on his person unnecessarily at the time of the arrest. Gerald Williams corroborated the defendant's testimony as to most of the events transpiring on January 19, 1956.
Admissibility of Telephone Conversation:
Defendant charges the court erred in permitting an officer to relate a telephone conversation between the defendant and an informant. The officer listened to the conversation by means of an amplifier attached to the receiver and an extension cord. Defendant contends 'the listening-in' by the officer was an invasion of defendant's right of privacy guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, by Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution, and that it was a violation of Penal Code, § 640. The identical question was presented in the case of People v. Malotte, 46 Cal.2d 59, 292 P.2d 517, in which case the officers placed a recording device under a bed, connected it to an induction coil and recorded a telephone conversation. The court held 46 Cal.2d at page 63, 292 P.2d at page 519:
'Defendant contends, however, that the evidence was obtained in violation of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.A. § 605, and section 640 of the California Penal Code and that it was, therefore, inadmissible under the rule of People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brooks
...294 P.2d 6.) In such event, the fact the officers might have gained admittance by subterfuge is immaterial. (People v. Lawrence (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 435, 446, 308 P.2d 821.) It is concluded that there is nothing in the manner of the entry to the apartment or concerning the arrest of the de......
-
People v. Swayze
...court to be determined outside the presence of the jury. (People v. Gorg, 45 Cal.2d 776, 780-781, 291 P.2d 469; People v. Lawrence, 149 Cal.App.2d 435, 446-447, 308 P.2d 821; People v. Allen, 142 Cal.App.2d 267, 281, 298 P.2d 714.) When the question of the reasonableness or legality of an a......
-
People v. Dewson, Cr. 3329
...is a participant in the offense. Sorrentino v. United States, 9 Cir., 163 F.2d 267. This view was followed by this court in People v. Lawrence, Cal.App., 308 P.2d 821. The informants in this case did not appear as witnesses against the defendant. There would therefore seem to be no violatio......
-
People v. Shipstead
...criminal act with which the defendant is later charged, and is not a material witness on the issue of guilt. (People v. Lawrence (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 435, 450, 308 P.2d 821; to the same effect, see People v. McShann (1958) 50 Cal.2d 802, 808, 330 P.2d 33; People v. Garcia, supra, 67 Cal.2d......
-
Table of Cases null
...People v. Lawrence, 168 Cal. App. 2d 510, 336 P.2d 189 (1st Dist. 1959)—Ch. 4-C, §3.4.1(1)(b)[3]; §3.5.4 People v. Lawrence, 149 Cal. App. 2d 435, 308 P.2d 821 (1st Dist. 1957)—Ch. 4-C, §8.4.3(1)(a)[1] People v. Lawson, 52 Cal. App. 5th 1121, 267 Cal. Rptr. 3d 183 (1st Dist. 2020)—Ch. 3-B, ......
-
Chapter 4 - §8. Informant privilege
...of making a prima facie showing of materiality. See People v. Williams (1958) 51 Cal.2d 355, 358-59; People v. Lawrence (1st Dist.1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 435, 452. [2] Informant as eyewitness. If the informant was an eyewitness to the commission of the crime or its immediate antecedents, the i......