People v. Littlejohn

• Decision Date: 27 February 1957
• Docket Number: Cr. 1220
• Citation: 307 P.2d 425,148 Cal.App.2d 786
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Frank LITTLEJOHN, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 425

307 P.2d 425

148 Cal.App.2d 786

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Frank LITTLEJOHN, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 1220.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Feb. 27, 1957.

J. E. Hahesy, Fresno, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

GRIFFIN, Justice.

Defendant was convicted by a jury on one count of an information charging violation of section 11500 of [148 Cal.App.2d 788] the Health and Safety Code (unlawful possession of heroin), and on three counts of another information charging violation of section 11714 of the Health and Safety Code (unlawful furnishing of heroin to a minor) on three separate occasions. He admitted three prior convictions.

Defendant's appeal is predicated primarily on the contention that the trial court erroneously, over timely objections, admitted evidence which was unlawfully obtained without a search warrant and was prejudicial to this defendant.

Defendant and appellant was living at a house in Fresno with his sister Lydia Ruiz and one Ernest Johnson. Two members of the narcotics squad previously learned of an all-points bulletin in reference to the theft from San Francisco of a green Mercury Montclair coupe with a certain Washington State license number, and that one Janet Jones was a suspect and had been charged with stealing it. This car had been previously seen by the officers around Fresno being driven by defendant and also by one Dolores Villarreal. The officers received word from Tacoma, Washington, that the car was registered to one Yippee Fung of Seattle, who had moved to San Francisco. One officer testified that other officers working the Chinatown beat, called him on two or three occasions and told him they had information that defendant was peddling narcotics from the vehicle and that he had questioned defendant one night at a Drive-In while seated in the car with one Dolores Villarreal, whom he took to be Janet Jones; and that defendant then told him the car belonged to Janet Jones. Upon this information and the fact defendant and Lydia were registered as co-tenants at this house, these officers arranged a stakeout in a near-by warehouse and watched the operations of defendant and the occupants of the house over a period of several days. On the evening of April 7th, at about 10 o'clock this car drove up and was parked in a carport. Two women, Dolores and Lydia, stepped out. When just inside the screen-door, the officers approached, exhibited their badges and told them they were under arrest on suspicion of car theft. They had neither a warrant of arrest nor search warrant. There is some conflict as to whether the screen-door had been closed when the officers walked in. However, if it was closed the officers opened it and stepped inside. Defendant, Johnson and one Helen Gonzales were there seated in the living room. Defendant was questioned about the car and he said it belonged to Janet Jones, a friend of his in San Francisco, that she had loaned it to him, and that his license was in the car. Defendant was told by the officer that defendant had no license in the car because he knew it had been revoked some months previously. Without objection by anyone, one officer looked through the house to see if Janet Jones was there. As he stepped into the front bedroom, which had been occupied by defendant, he saw a black box sitting on the night table next to the bed. It was partially opened. He saw a wad of cotton and on top of it a gelatin capsule containing a brown powder which proved to be heroin. The officer returned to the living room and asked defendant about it. Defendant replied: 'That isn't mine, that is something Janet left here.' Defendant then asked the officer if he had a search warrant and the officer replied in the negative. He then advised those present they were all under arrest on suspicion of possession of narcotics. A general search was made of the house and there was found a spoon and an eyedropper with traces of heroin on them, two hypodermic needles, and a box containing gelatin capsules. Defendant stated he and his sister were renting the house and the front bedroom in which the box was found was his. Dolores, aged 17, in the presence of defendant stated she would take the rap because she had not been in trouble before and defendant agreed. She then said the outfit belonged to her. She testified at the trial that it belonged to defendant and that she lived at this house; that defendant slept alone in the front bedroom and she slept on a couch in the living room; that she did the housework and washed clothes; that she started using heroin in the arm while living at another address with Janet Jones and defendant; that on the evening of April 6th or 7th, one of the days charged in the information, defendant furnished her with a capsule of heroin, placed the contents in the spoon with water, lit a match and heated it, picked it up with an eyedropper and needle and injected it into her arm, and that thereafter he injected a similar portion in his arm; and that he made no charge for this administration. She identified the spoon and other paraphernalia in evidence as that used by defendant, and testified that a similar administration of this drug to her by defendant occurred on the evening of April 5th and again on April 6th, as charged, and that Janet Jones lived there about two weeks prior to this occasion.

Defendant produced several witnesses in an endeavor to impeach the testimony of Dolores. She had just been committed to the Youth Authority as a user of heroin growing out of these charges. These several witnesses were friends of defendant and some were users of heroin or had prior convictions. Defendant denied possession of the heroin and denied any sale or injections or administration of heroin to Dolores.

The evidence, if admissible against defendant, was sufficient to support all the charges, and the testimony of the complaining witness Dolores Villarreal, although contradicted in some respects, was not inherently improbable. People v. De Paula, 43 Cal.2d 643, 649, 276 P.2d 600. The principal question is whether it was illegally obtained under the authorities relied upon by defendant, such as People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905; People v. Wilson, 145 Cal.App.2d 1, 301 P.2d 974; People v. Kitchens, 46 Cal.2d 260, 294 P.2d 17; People v. Thymiakas, 140 Cal.App.2d 940, 296 P.2d 4; People v. Schraier, 141 Cal.App.2d 600, 297 P.2d 81; People v. Gale, 46 Cal.2d 253, 294 P.2d 13; and People v. Molarius, 146 Cal.App.2d 129, 303 P.2d 350.

There can be no question that there was reasonable cause for the arrest of Dolores Villarreal and Lydia Ruiz for violation of section 503 of the Vehicle Code. The...