People v. Lazzara, Cr. 3003
| Decision Date | 21 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3003 |
| Citation | 281 P.2d 4,131 Cal.App.2d 663 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph R. LAZZARA, Defendant and Appellant. |
P. W. Fisher, San Francisco, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
The defendant and appellant was tried to a jury on four counts charging a violation of section 11500 of the Health & Safety Code--the sale of heroin. On a separate indictment he was tried on a charge of conspiracy to violate the same code section. He was found guilty under counts one, three and four; not guilty under count two, and guilty of the conspiracy charge. He was given concurrent sentences under counts one and three; a consecutive sentence under count four, and a consecutive sentence on the conspiracy charge. He appeals from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial. On the appeal he is now represented by counsel assigned by this court on defendant's request. The appeal is ably presented, but counsel's task is a hopeless one.
A brief statement of the facts is sufficient as there is no material conflict in the evidence. Three federal officers engaged one Jim Black--referred to throughout by the prosecution as the 'special employee', but identified by defendant as 'Jim Black,' a former peddler or user of narcotics. The officers gave Black $500 in marked currency, then trailed him until he met defendant. Thereafter they found a quantity of heroin in Black's possession; some of the marked currency in defendant's possession, some in the possession of his co-conspirator, Cherrito, who pleaded guilty.
The first ground urged by appellant is that it was error to sustain the prosecution's objections to the questions concerning the name, whereabouts, and character of the mysterious 'special employee'. Even if the ruling were error it could not have been prejudicial under the special circumstances of this case since the appellant, as a witness, voluntarily disclosed that he knew this 'special employee' and that his name was Jim Black.
The evidence of conspiracy was sufficient. Before the sale was consummated appellant drove the special agent twice around the block in the vicinity of Cherrito's home, then let the agent out of the car and drove around the block, stopping in front of Cherrito's home. A man identified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lawrence
...made to him in official confidence, when the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.' The case of People v. Lazzara, 131 Cal.App.2d 663, 281 P.2d 4, parallels this case in that the informant was a participant in the crime and the court sustained the prosecution's objection to the qu......
-
McCoy v. State
...Morris, 1946, 319 Mass. 577, 66 N.E.2d 804, and Commonwealth v. Congdon, 1928, 265 Mass. 166, 165 N.E. 467. Accord, People v. Lazzara, 1955, 131 Cal.App.2d 663, 281 P.2d 4. Also see 8 Wigmore, Evidence (3d ed. 1940), Sec. 2374(2); McCormick, Evidence (1954), Sec. In the Sorrentino case, sup......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...we do not perceive how the failure to divulge the identity of the informant could have been prejudicial to defendant. People v. Lazzara, 131 Cal.App.2d 663, 281 P.2d 4. Concerning appellant's second point that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction, in accord wi......
-
Barr v. City of San Diego
...De Losa v. Superior Court, 166 Cal.App.2d 1, 332 P.2d 390; People v. McShann, 50 Cal.2d 802, 330 P.2d 33, supra; People v. Lazzara, 131 Cal.App.2d 663, 281 P.2d 4. The reason or cause for removal was sufficiently stated in the notice. Sections 23.1203 and 23.1204, San Diego Municipal Code, ......