People v. Robinson, Cr. 6315

• Decision Date: 22 December 1958
• Docket Number: Cr. 6315
• Citation: 166 Cal.App.2d 416,333 P.2d 120
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James ROBINSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 120

333 P.2d 120

166 Cal.App.2d 416

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James ROBINSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 6315.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Dec. 22, 1958.

Hearing Denied Feb. 18, 1959.

Earl Klein, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Arthur C. DeGoede, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

LILLIE, Justice.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of possession of marijuana under section 11500, Health and Safety Code, and sentenced to the state prison. He appeals from the judgment of conviction and order denying motion for new trial.

The prosecution's evidence discloses that at approximately 8:30 p. m. on the evening of defendant's arrest, officer Charles Fantuzzi, in the presence of two other officers, received information from a confidential informant that he had been in defendant's apartment the day before, saw him sell marijuana and that he was in possession of marijuana there 'now' at a certain location. One-half hour later the officers, without a search warrant or warrant of arrest, arrived at the premises. As they approached the front door of defendant's apartment, one Crowley emerged therefrom and upon learning they were police officers, slammed the door shut. They arrested Crowley and made entry. An altercation ensued, defendant claiming he did not know they were officers, and after handcuffing him, the officers searched the premises and found seven marijuana cigarettes on the floor of the hall leading to the bathroom and loose marijuana on the floor around and in the toliet bowl. Defendant told them he was not a peddler and that the marijuana was for his own use.

Defendant testified he did not use marijuana, did not have any in his possession, had none in the apartment, did not see any there and did not know the officers claimed they found marijuana in his apartment until they took him to the police station. He denied having made contrary statements to the officers.

At the hearing on probable cause in the absence of the jury, officer Fantuzzi was examined concerning defendant's arrest and subsequent search. At the outset the defense objected to the introduction of any evidence on the ground defendant's apartment and person were searched without probable cause. On voir dire, the officer testified he had known the informant for three years and the latter had given him reliable information concerning narcotics on three other occasions from August to October, 1957, leading to arrests or convictions; that he had learned from other officers he was reliable; and that the informant told him he had been in defendant's home the day before when defendant had sold marijuana and 'the marijuana is there now,' defendant's address, the location and that he lived there with a blond-haired woman.

On cross-examination, the defense asked officer Fantuzzi the names of the persons arrested on the three other occasions in reliance on previous information given by informant. The officer claimed 'privilege on that answer.' The prosecution objected on the ground that disclosure of the names would tend to lead to the identity of the informant. In sustaining the objection, the lower court declared: 'Possibly, and then I don't know whether it is material.' A second attempt to cross-examine the officer 'on his reliability about the four (three) occasions' likewise resulted in a ruling precluding further inquiry on that point. The defense then asked officer Fantuzzi the identity of the informant. He claimed privilege (under section 1881(5), Code of Civil Procedure), refusing to divulge the name, which refusal the trial court upheld.

Thereafter, the trial judge ruled that the officers had 'reasonable cause' and ordered the prosecution to proceed with the trial on the merits. The defense then stated: 'I think the record is adequately protected, so that when the offer of evidence does come, I won't make any objection during the trial, because the court has already ruled it is admissible,' to which the court affirmatively responded.

Prejudicial error is claimed on two points--on voir dire the trial court limited cross-examination of the officer concerning the names of the persons previously arrested as a result of information supplied by the informant; and the trial judge did not require the officer on voir dire to disclose the identity of the informant. Appellant's real contention, however, is that his arrest was without probable cause making the subsequent search and seizure unlawful, and that in any event, he was entitled to have the name of the informant to aid him in the preparation of his defense. On the record before us we believe appellant's position on the issue of his arrest and search is well taken.

In answer to the claim that in preventing him from ascertaining the names of those arrested on prior information given by the informer, the trial court precluded defendant from inquiring into the reasonableness of the officer's reliance on the informer, which constituted the basis of his arrest and subsequent search, respondent argues that disclosure of their names might divulge the identity of the confidential informant and in any event, the names are immaterial as relating only to collateral issues.

Since it was stipulated at the outset that the arrest and search of defendant's person and apartment were made without warrants, the burden of showing proper justification for the arrest, search and seizure then fell on the prosecution. Badillo v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 269, 294 P.2d 23. This it purported to assume on voir dire by eliciting testimony from officer Fantuzzi that the officers arrested defendant in reliance on information given to him by a confidential informant, upon which he had previously relied. If this was the only information upon which they acted in making forcible entry and arresting defendant, it is clear under the ruling of Priestly v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.2d 812, 330 P.2d 39, the objection to the question concerning the names of the arrestees should have been overruled.

Officer Fantuzzi testified on voir dire that the arrest of defendant was made pursuant to the communication he received from the confidential informant. The record discloses that this was the only basis of defendant's arrest. Respondent argues briefly that 'the police had more than more information to sustain the arrest' and alludes to the evidence that prior to entry, one Crowley emerged from defendant's apartment and upon learning they were police officers, slammed the door. Although officer Fantuzzi related this evidence on voir dire, a reading of his testimony discloses that he described the occurrence only in passing and then as a...