People v. Ortiz
| Decision Date | 25 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 7088 |
| Citation | 185 Cal.App.2d 622,8 Cal.Rptr. 494 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. George Prieto ORTIZ, Raymond Salvador Gomez, Walter Delayo Fraijo, Raymond Reyes, Robert Martinez, Jr., and Salvador Simental, Defendants. Raymond Salvador Gomez, Defendant and Appellant. |
Ellery E. Cuff, Public Defender of Los Angeles County, Daniel R. Finn, Deputy Public Defender, Richard W. Erskine, Deputy Public Defender, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., David R. Cadwell, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant Raymond Gomez and five other persons were charged with a violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, possession of marijuana. After a nonjury trial, appellant Gomez, and his codefendant Fraijo, were found guilty. The other four defendants were found not guilty. This appeal is from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying appellant's motion for new trial. The sole question presented is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction as to appellant. We have concluded that this question must be answered in the affirmative.
At approximately 11:45 p. m. on September 4, 1959, appellant Gomez and five codefendants were sitting in a 1950 Chevrolet sedan which was parked in front of 2421 Chelsea Street, Los Angeles. Earlier that evening Police Officer Celaya and a fellow officer had responded to a call reporting a juvenile disturbance in the 2400 block of Chelsea Street. They had been advised to be on the lookout for vehicles containing several male persons who were members of different gangs and who were looking for a fight.
Observing the parked Chevrolet with six male persons sitting in it, the officers approached it to investigate. They observed that three persons were seated in the front seat and three others in the rear seat. The persons occupying the rear seat were one Ortiz, who was seated on the left side, one Fraijo, who sat in the middle, and appellant Gomez who was seated on the right. Directing his flashlight beam on the floor board of the rear compartment, Officer Celaya observed a plastic bag containing a small quantity of a green, leaft substance, which was later identified as containing marijuana. The plastic bag was resting on the floor between the feet of Ortiz. Officer Celaya asked Ortiz what was lying between his feet; Ortiz replied that he did not know what it was, but Gomez stated, 'That's fiber glass, man'. Later Officer Celaya observed two brown paper-wrapped cigarettes lying on the street between the right side of the Chevrolet and the curb. The evidence showed that these cigarettes contained marijuana. The officers asked all the defendants, including Gomez, concerning the ownership of the Chevrolet. All the defendants at that time pretended lack of knowledge as to the ownership of the car. Later at the police station, however, Fraijo admitted that the Chevrolet was his. There was evidence that Gomez knew that the Chevrolet belonged to Fraijo.
Appellant seeks to invoke the rule that the mere fact that a defendant was in a car in which marijuana was found or from which a narcotic was thrown is not sufficient in itself to convict the defendant where there were several persons in the vehicle. It may be granted that appellant's statement of the rule is correct. People v. Foster, 115 Cal.App.2d 866, 868, 253 P.2d 50; People v. Hancock, 156 Cal.App.2d 305, 309, 319 P.2d 731.
However, in the instant case there is other evidence from which the trial judge could reasonably draw inferences of appellant's constructive possession and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Haynes
...228 Cal.App.2d 722, 729, 39 Cal.Rptr. 843; People v. Magdaleno, supra, 158 Cal.App.2d 48, 52, 322 P.2d 89; see also People v. Ortiz, 185 Cal.App.2d 622, 624, 8 Cal.Rptr. 494.) The evidence in the case at bench supports reasonably deducible inferences that the defendant, with his co-defendan......
-
People v. Roberts
...as well as actual. And it is for the trial court to draw the inference. [Citation.]' (p. 844, 254 P.2d p. 603.) In People v. Ortiz (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 622, 8 Cal.Rptr. 494, the circumstances of the arrest were somewhat similar to those in the instant case. There the defendant Gomez and fi......
-
People v. Mermuys
...v. Finn, 232 Cal.App.2d 422, 426, 42 Cal.Rptr. 704; People v. Roberts, 228 Cal.App.2d 722, 728, 39 Cal.Rptr. 843; People v. Ortiz, 185 Cal.App.2d 622, 624, 8 Cal.Rptr. 494.) These circumstances are generally acts or declarations which indicate a 'consciousness of guilt' on the part of the d......
-
People v. Showers
...Redrick, 55 Cal.2d 282, 288--289, 10 Cal.Rptr. 823, 359 P.2d 255; People v. Osslo, 50 Cal.2d 75, 93, 323 P.2d 397; People v. Ortiz, 185 Cal.App.2d 622, 624, 8 Cal.Rptr. 494; People v. Bagley, 133 Cal.App.2d 481, 484--485, 284 P.2d 36; People v. Foster, 115 Cal.App.2d 866, 868, 253 P.2d 50.)......