People v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 30 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6346 |
| Citation | 334 P.2d 573,51 Cal.2d 445 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Respondent, v. Wilma Lee RICHARDSON, Appellant. |
Frank J. Baumgarten, San Francisco, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Peter T. Kennedy, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
A jury found defendant guilty of possessing narcotics in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. On this appeal she claims that there was an unlawful search and seizure and that there is insufficient evidence to show knowing possession.
Defendant was taken into custody on the morning of January 2, 1957, by Inspector Noel and three other officers. Noel and one of the other officers testified at the trial and related substantially the same facts with respect to the arrest. Upon entering the building in which defendant's apartment was located, the officers, who did not have a warrant, saw defendant open her door and walk down a hallway to the rear of the building. Her door was left ajar, and the officers entered and began to conduct a search. When defendant returned a few minutes later, she was placed under arrest, and a vial of narcotics was found in her skirt pocket. She said, 'Well, I guess you have got me good this time,' and, when questioned as to where she had obtained the narcotics, she replied, 'I'd rather not say.' She did not deny knowing that the narcotics were on her person.
Inspector Noel testified that the officers had gone to defendant's apartment because of information obtained from two sources on the morning of the arrest. A man who was known to the inspector as James Allen and who claimed to be living with defendant came to the inspector's office and said that defendant was selling narcotics at her apartment. Shortly thereafter, Noel was told by Inspector Ohlson, who did not testify at the trial, that Ohlson had received the same information from Randolph Clark. According to Noel, both Allen and Clark had, on previous occasions, given the authorities information which led to arrests, and, in his opinion, they were reliable informers. A photograph was introduced into evidence which Noel identified as being that of James Allen.
Defendant took the stand and said that she was living with a James Allen at the time she was taken into custody but that he was not the man whose photograph was in evidence. She testified that she had not known of the presence of narcotics on her person, and she denied making the incriminating remarks attributed to her by the officers. Her explanation was that one of her boarders, Randolph Clark, had quarreled with her and that, while she was washing clothes shortly before the arrest, Faye Robertson, a woman living with Clark, had asked her to keep something for a few minutes and had put an object wrapped in a five-dollar bill into her skirt pocket. According to defendant, the vial of narcotics was wrapped in a five-dollar bill when found by the police, and she then saw the vial for the first time. The officers testified, however, that there was no five-dollar bill in defendant's pocket, and, when Faye Robertson was called to the stand by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cooper, Cr. 4233
...that it was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure, may not raise the question for the first time on appeal. (People v. Richardson (1959) 51 Cal.2d 445, 447, 334 P.2d 573; People v. Hyde (1958) 51 Cal.2d 152, 157, 331 P.2d 42; People v. Hunter (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 385, 394, 33 Cal.Rptr......
-
People v. Pineda
...of evidence will not be reviewed on appeal in the absence of a sufficient objection in the trial court. (People v. Richardson (1959) 51 Cal.2d 445, 447, 334 P.2d 573; People v. Kitchens (1956) 46 Cal.2d 260, 262, 294 P.2d 17; see Henry v. State of Mississippi (1965) 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 5......
-
People v. Cockrell
...a sufficient objection in the trial court. (People v. Robinson, 62 Cal.2d 889, 894, 44 Cal.Rptr. 762, 402 P.2d 834; People v. Richardson, 51 Cal.2d 445, 447, 334 P.2d 573.) Moreover, Mr. Cockrell consented to the search of the car, and the fact that he was then under arrest does not show as......
-
People v. Terry
...17 L.Ed.2d 551 (overruled on another ground in People v. Ireland, 70 Cal.2d 522, 540, 75 Cal.Rptr. 188, 450 P.2d 580; People v. Richardson, 51 Cal.2d 445, 447, 334 P.2d 573.) Terry urges, however, that failure to object rendered representation by counsel a farce and a sham, itself grounds f......