People v. Mistriel, Cr. 4724
| Decision Date | 27 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 4724 |
| Citation | 110 Cal.App.2d 110,241 P.2d 1050 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MISTRIEL et al. |
Irving Isaac Mistriel, in pro. per., and James William Lawson, in pro. per.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Stanford D. Herlick, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant Mistriel was accused in two counts, and defendant Lawson was accused in one count, of violating section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code in that they unlawfully had in their possession flowering tops and leaves of Indian Hemp (cannabis sativa). Each defendant pleaded not guilty. Lawson admitted an allegation in the information that he had been convicted previously of a felony. Trial by jury was waived. By stipulation the cause was submitted upon the transcript of the preliminary examination. The defendants were adjudged guilty as charged. Their applications for probation were denied. Judgments were that the defendants be imprisoned in the state prison. Defendants appeal from the judgments.
Appellants contend that section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code 'is unconstitutional for the reason that it is so vague and ambiguous that it deprives them the right to due process of law.' That section provides that '* * * no person shall possess * * * a narcotic except upon the written prescription of a physician * * *.' Appellants argue that said section is a 'prescription section' relating entirely to narcotics, and it has nothing to do with marihuana; and that said section cannot be understood without a reading of section 11001 of the Health and Safety Code. Said section 11001 provides that "Narcotics,' as used in this division, means any of the following: * * * (h) All parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., (commonly known as marihuana) * * *.' Sections 11001 and 11500 of the Health and Safety Code appeal in Division X of said code. That division is entitled 'Narcotics' and pertains to the regulation and control thereof. It was not necessary that the definition of 'Narcotics' appear in section 11500. The contention of appellants is not sustainable.
As a further argument that section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code is invalid, the appellants assert that marihuana is a beneficial herb and not a narcotic. As above shown, the possession of marihuana is, by statute, a public offense. The Legislature is empowered to enact such a statute. As stated in the Matter of Yun Quong, 159 Cal. 508, at page 515, 114 P. 835, 838: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Glaser
...and dangerous drugs has often been upheld. (Matter of Yun Quong (1911) 159 Cal. 508, 511-515, 114 P. 835; People v. Mistriel (1952) 110 Cal.App.2d 110, 111-112, 241 P.2d 1050; People v. Oliver (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d 431, 434-435, 152 P.2d 329; and see People v. Hicks (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 265......
-
Warren v. State
...173 Ohio St. 419, 183 N.E.2d 363; State v. Page, 395 S.W.2d 146 (Mo); Jenkins v. State, 215 Md. 70, 137 A.2d 115; People v. Mistriel, 110 Cal.App.2d 110, 241 P.2d 1050. Other recent state decisions on this point are Willoughby v. State, 481 S.W.2d 893 (Tex.Cr.App.); Finklea v. State, 481 S.......
-
People v. Gonzalez
...542, 89 S. Ct. 1243; People v. Aguiar (1968) 257 Cal. App. 2d 597, 603, 65 Cal. Rptr. 171 [use of marijuana]; People v. Mistriel (1952) 110 Cal. App. 2d 110, 111-112, 241 P.2d 1050 [possession of marijuana]; Matter of Yun Quong (1911) 159 Cal. 508, 511-515, 114 P. 835 [possession of opium];......
-
Miller v. State
...v. State, supra (168 Tex.Cr.R. 507); State v. Page, 395 S.W.2d 146 (Mo.); Jenkins v. State, 215 Md. 70, 137 A.2d 115; People v. Mistriel, 110 Cal.App.2d 110, 241 P.2d 1050; People v. Woody, 61 Cal.2d 716, 40 Cal.Rptr. 69, 394 P.2d And we are not impressed with the claim that as a result of ......