People v. Rand
Decision Date | 23 April 1962 |
Docket Number | Cr. 7892 |
Citation | 21 Cal.Rptr. 89,202 Cal.App.2d 668 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sidney Gene RAND, Defendant and Appellant. |
Harry E. Weiss, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., and S. Clark Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
By an information the defendant was accused of the crime of possession of marijuana in violation of section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code. He waived his right to trial by jury. It was stipulated that the case would be submitted on the evidence received at the time of the preliminary hearing, with the right reserved to the People and the defendant to offer additional evidence. The defendant was found guilty as charged. He has appealed from the judgment.
While the defendant presents a number of contentions, it is only necessary to discuss one since it is determinative of this appeal. That contention is that the court erred in receiving in evidence a statement made by the defendant at the place of his arrest because such statement was not voluntary.
Only two witnesses testified, Deputy Sheriff Tizenor and the defendant. By stipulation, the necessity for the testimony of a forensic chemist as to the narcotic nature of the articles hereinafter mentioned was dispensed with. A re sume of the pertinent testimony will be given.
On May 24, 1960, Officer Tizenor, together with four other officers, had the apartment building where the defendant resided under observation for about two hours. During that time he saw about twenty-five or thirty persons enter the defendant's apartment, each remaining for a short period of time and then leaving. The officers had no search warrant and no warrant for the arrest of anyone. After such surveillance, Officer Tizenor knocked on the defendant's door. The defendant opened the door. Thereupon the officer displayed his identification card and badge and stated that he was a police officer and would like to talk to the defendant. The latter 'stepped back from the door, pulled the door wide open, and stated, 'Come in." The officer entered the room and observed what appeared to be a portion of a marijuana cigarette in an ash tray. The defendant was then placed under arrest and the bedroom of the apartment was searched. In a jewel box on a stand next to the bed was found a cigarette package containing 'thirty-five brown paper-wrapped cigarettes, which appeared to be marijuana.' In the presence of several of the other officers the witness asked the defendant if all of the cigarettes belonged to him and the defendant said that they did. Later, at the Firestone Sheriff's Station, the defendant made substantially the same statement.
With respect to the statement made by the defendant in the apartment, on cross-examination Officer Tizenor testified in part as follows:
At the trial the defendant's testimony as to his conversation with one of the officers was in part as follows:
During the course of the argument after the evidence had been received at the trial, the defendant's attorney stated as follows: '* * * may I simply point out that the officer's testimony in the transcript corroborates the testimony given by the defendant as to whether or not his wife and children would be taken in, and I think this goes to support the defendant's contention that the admission was not freely and voluntarily given, * * *' 1 The trial judge made no express ruling as to the admissibility of the defendant's statement but stated in substance that he did not entertain any doubt as to the defendant's guilt with respect to the thirty-five cigarettes.
In People v. Atchley, 53 Cal.2d 160, at page 170, 346 P.2d 764, at page 769, the Supreme Court stated:
Before the statement of the defendant was admissible, the prosecution had to sustain its burden of proof that it was voluntary. (People v. Berve, 51 Cal.2d 286, 291, 332 P.2d 97; People v. Speaks, 156 Cal.App.2d 25, 36, 319 P.2d 709.) 'The requirement that a confession be voluntary is one of public policy, and it is a fundamental right of the defendant, denial of which is a violation of due process.' (People...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cameron, In re
...1, 393 P.2d 161, and cases cited; see also People v. Castro (1968) 257 A.C.A. 736, 739, 65 Cal.Rptr. 62; People v. Rand (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 668, 672--674, 21 Cal.Rptr. 89.) Since Cameron's abandonment of his appeal is excusable, he may properly challenge the second confession for the firs......
-
Stokes v. State
...(1965) (defendant's production of narcotics from his kitchen in response to police promise not to arrest his wife); People v. Rand, 202 Cal.App.2d 668, 21 Cal.Rptr. 89 (1962) (defendant's admission that marijuana cigarettes were his prompted by police threat to arrest his wife and take his ......
-
People v. Daniels
...1418; People v. Clark, 263 Cal.App.2d 87, 69 Cal.Rptr. 218; People v. Manriquez, 231 Cal.App.2d 725, 42 Cal.Rptr. 157; People v. Rand, 202 Cal.App.2d 668, 21 Cal.Rptr. 89; People v. Mellus, 134 Cal.App. 219, 25 P.2d 237) are inapposite. They dealt with official threats to arrest a relative ......
-
People v. Steger
...an admission invalid. (See, e.g., People v. Trout (1960) 54 Cal.2d 576, 584--585, 6 Cal.Rptr. 479, 354 P.2d 231; People v. Rand (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 668, 674, 21 Cal.Rptr. 89.) However, where no express or implied promise or threat is made by the police, a suspect's belief that his coopera......
-
Lego v. Twomey: the improbable relationship between an obscure Supreme Court decision and wrongful convictions.
...excluded because they are untrustworthy....'" (quoting People v Atchley, 346 F.2d 674, 768, 769 (Cal. 1959))); accord People v. Rand, 21 Cal. Rptr. 89, 91 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2d 1962) (same); State v. Smith, 242 P.2d 942, 944 (Or. 1965) (involuntary confessions inadmissible because experie......