People v. Rayford

• Decision Date: 27 February 1961
• Docket Number: Cr. 7170
• Citation: 189 Cal.App.2d 474,11 Cal.Rptr. 427
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bernice RAYFORD, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 427

11 Cal.Rptr. 427

189 Cal.App.2d 474

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bernice RAYFORD, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 7170.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Feb. 27, 1961.

Russell E. Parsons and Harry E. Weiss, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and David R. Cadwell, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FORD, Justice.

The appellant was accused of two violations of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. In the first count of the information the offense alleged was possession of marihuana, while in the second count the charge was possession of amidone. Her right to trial by jury was waived. It was stipulated that the matter be submitted to the trial court upon the transcript of the testimony given at the preliminary examination and upon the exhibit there received in evidence. Having been found guilty as charged, the appellant has appealed from the judgment of conviction. ¹ The sole contention presented is that the conviction cannot stand because the evidence essential thereto was obtained by means of an unlawful search and seizure.

Aside from the testimony of a police chemist who expressed his opinion as to the narcotic nature of the objects found on the appellant's premises, the only witness was M. E. Buckner, a police officer for the city of Los Angeles. The appellant did not testify in her own behalf.

Officer Buckner testified that at approximately 8:50 p. m. on the night of the arrest of the appellant he and Officer Lavan went to a rear window of her house and listened for about five or ten minutes to a conversation which was taking place inside the house. Then the telephone rang and he heard someone say, 'They are.' Thereafter someone ran to the rear portion of the house and the back porch light was turned on. Some person said, 'The heat is outside,' and ran into another part of the house. There was a sound as of the opening of a medicine chest and 'a rattle that sounded like bottles.' Shortly thereafter the officer heard a toilet flush twice. The officer went to the rear door. He knocked. The appellant came to the door. The witness told her that he was a police officer and that he wanted to talk to her about narcotics. She told him to come into the front room and that she did not want her friends to hear what was happening. After the officer went into the front room, he asked the appellant how much 'stuff' she had flushed down the toilet. She answered, 'Oh, a little less than a half ounce.' He told her that she was dealing in narcotics and that he wanted to know where the rest of the 'stuff' was. After the conversation had lasted about fifteen minutes, she told him that she had been selling narcotics, but only on a small scale, and was making about ten dollars a day at the most. She then took him to the garage where she said there was some marihuana 'stashed.' After she unlocked the garage door, she pointed to a box, but when it was found to be empty she said, 'Mado must have come Sunday and taken this marihuana away. It probably went to San Francisco.'

The officer and the appellant then returned into the house and talked further for about fifteen minutes. He accused her of having some narcotics 'stashed' on the property. She then inquired as to what would happen to her if narcotics were found and he replied that he would not discuss that with her until she disclosed where the narcotics were. She then said that she would show him the location of the narcotics. The officer went with her into a small utility room adjacent to the kitchen. She said that the 'stuff' was in the attic above the room. Upon climbing into the attic, he found a large manila bag containing a brick of green leafy material (which the chemist identified as marihuana). In a smaller manila bag he found two contraceptives and in another bag a blue ballon, each containing a white powdery substance (which the chemist identified as amidone). He also found nineteen white-paper cigarettes (which, in the opinion of the chemist, contained marihuana).

On cross-examination, Officer Buckner testified that he had no warrant for the arrest of the appellant and no search warrant. When he listened at the window, he was in the appellant's driveway.

The objects so obtained were received in evidence at the preliminary examination over the objection that they had been obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure.

Upon this appeal, the evidence and the inferences reasonably to be deduced therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the People. People v....