People v. Poe, Cr. 6269
| Decision Date | 24 October 1958 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6269 |
| Citation | 330 P.2d 681,164 Cal.App.2d 514 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Marilyn R. POE, Defendant and Appellant. |
John H. Marshall, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Joan D. Gross, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
By information defendant was charged with possession of heroin. By stipulation the cause was submitted to the court without a jury on the transcript of the preliminary hearing and additional evidence. Defendant was found guilty as charged. She appeals from the judgment and the order denying her motion for a new trial.
About 10:45 p. m. on October 29, 1957 Officer Van Court of the Los Angeles Police Department received a telephone call from an unidentified person who told him defendant and Johnny Patterson were in possession of heroin in unit 4 of the Valley Vue Motel at 14918 Ventura Boulevard, Los Angeles.
Shortly thereafter Van Court, with Officers Olson and Hill, went to the motel and with the use of a pass key entered unit 4. As they entered, Van Court saw Patterson who was standing in the bathroom throw something into the toilet. Hill retrieved from the toilet a syringe that was nearly full of liquid and an eye dropper with a hypodermic needle attached. Defendant was standing near the bathroom door at the time. Immediately to the left of the bathroom door Van Court found four small gelatin capsules on the top of a dresser. Van Court gave defendant a light accommodation test of her eyes and concluded she was under the influence of narcotics. Defendant and Patterson were placed under arrest. The eye dropper and the capsules contained heroin.
At the police station defendant told Van Court and Hill she could not explain what had happened to her but she had had a 'terrific yen' for narcotics over the weekend; she and Patterson had gone together, she had put in $28 and Patterson had put in $22; they scored 2 1/2 grams in the Hollywood area; she had 'shot two caps' of it about two hours before the officers entered the motel; she was using about two or four caps a day when she had it; Patterson had bought the narcotics and had given them to her.
Patterson testified: he bought the narcotics; he received no money from defendant; the narcotics were his, defendant had no interest in them; he did not see defendant take a 'fix.' Defendant testified: she did not use any narcotics on October 29, 1957; she did not have any narcotics at that time; she could not recall whether any physical examination of her person was made at the time of her arrest; she did not tell the officers the matters related above; she did not see Patterson take a 'fix' or use a hypodermic kit in the motel. Defendant admitted having...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Francis
...joint dominion and control of the accused and another (People v. Jackson, 191 Cal.App.2d 296, 302, 12 Cal.Rptr. 748; People v. Poe, 164 Cal.App.2d 514, 516, 330 P.2d 681; People v. MacArthur, 126 Cal.App.2d 232, 236, 271 P.2d 914). The accused also has constructive possession of narcotics t......
-
People v. Haynes
...an inference of joint and constructive possession are joint occupancy of premises where the narcotic is located (People v. Poe, 164 Cal.App.2d 514, 516, 330 P.2d 681; People v. MacArthur, 126 Cal.App.2d 232, 236, 271 P.2d 914; People v. Williams, 121 Cal.App.2d 679, 681, 263 P.2d 853); rece......
-
People v. Gonzales, F053382 (Cal. App. 6/17/2008)
...showing of joint and constructive possession includes joint occupancy of the premises where drugs are located. (People v. Poe (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 514, 516; People v. MacArthur (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 232, 236; People v. Williams (1953) 121 Cal.App.2d 679, "[N]o sharp line can be drawn to di......
-
People v. Gallagher
...305 P.2d 97; People v. Huerta, 148 Cal.App.2d 272, 306 P.2d 505; People v. Gonzalves, 158 Cal.App.2d 98, 322 P.2d 255; People v. Poe, 164 Cal.App.2d 514, 330 P.2d 681; People v. Baker, 170 Cal.App.2d 240, 338 P.2d 556; People v. Montez, 175 Cal.App.2d 303, 345 P.2d The word 'score' is commo......