People v. Rubacalba, S030158
Citation | 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 628,859 P. 2d 708,6 Cal.4th 62 |
Decision Date | 25 October 1993 |
Docket Number | No. S030158,S030158 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
Parties | , 859 P.2d 708 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Pascual Hernandez RUBACALBA, Defendant and Appellant. |
Geoffrey R. Pope, Ontario, for defendant and appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., George Williamson, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Carol Wendelin Pollack, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert Carl Schneider, Marc E. Turchin and Frederick Grab, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
In a prosecution for possession of cocaine, is testimony as to the concentration of cocaine within the sample relevant to the question whether the amount of the substance is sufficient to be "used as a controlled substance"?
Los Angeles Police Officer Patrick Ullum testified that on July 5, 1990, he observed defendant look in the officer's direction, then turn away. Defendant raised his right hand towards his mouth, and dropped "an off-white object" that resembled rock cocaine. Defendant's actions were consistent with trying to discard the object. Officer Ullum seized the item that defendant dropped and arrested him. Based upon his training and experience, Officer Ullum was of the opinion that the object, about one-quarter the size of an "aspirin," was a "usable quantity." Specifically, it "could be placed in a pipe or similar smoking device and smoked."
On cross-examination, defendant attempted to ask about the amount of cocaine needed "to get one high" and the purity of the cocaine in the seized object. He argued the questions were relevant because "the crime requires that the quantity be usable to achieve an effect." The court sustained a relevance objection to the questions.
Criminalist Debbie Daniels testified that the substance Officer Ullum seized weighed one-tenth of a gram and contained cocaine. On cross-examination, she testified that the tests she performed were "qualitative rather than quantitative." Upon prosecution objection, the defense was not allowed to question the criminalist regarding the purity of the cocaine.
As relevant here, the court instructed the jury, in accordance with CALJIC No. 12.00, that defendant had to have knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance and its nature as a controlled substance, and that the substance possessed must be "in an amount sufficient to be used as a controlled substance." It also instructed, in accordance with CALJIC No. 12.33, that it is not necessary that "the amount possessed, if used, would have the effect it is ordinarily expected to produce, referred to as narcotic effect" or that "the narcotic ingredient in the particular substance possessed was capable of producing a narcotic effect."
Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine. The Court of Appeal reversed. Relying primarily on People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 844, 85 Cal.Rptr. 238, the court found that the trial court improperly restricted defendant's right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. We granted review.
In People v. Leal (1966) 64 Cal.2d 504, 50 Cal.Rptr. 777, 413 P.2d 665, the defendant possessed "a small spoon on which was encrusted one-half grain (approximately 32 milligrams) of crystallized substance later stipulated to contain heroin." (Id., at p. 505, 50 Cal.Rptr. 777, 413 P.2d 665.) We found that (Id., at p. 512, 50 Cal.Rptr. 777, 413 P.2d 665, italics in original.) We remanded the case, in which a jury had been waived, to the trial court to determine whether the "residue was usable for sale or consumption." (Ibid.; see also People v. Fein (1971) 4 Cal.3d 747, 754, 94 Cal.Rptr. 607, 484 P.2d 583 [].)
With one possible exception, discussed below, the decisions construing People v. Leal, supra, 64 Cal.2d 504, 50 Cal.Rptr. 777, 413 P.2d 665, limit its holding to substances useless in form or quantity. There is no requirement that any particular purity or potential narcotic effect be proven.
Typical is People v. Karmelich (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 452, 456, 154 Cal.Rptr. 842, where the court held: "The decision in Leal must be limited to such cases, where only a residue unusable for any purpose, is found; it does not extend to a case such as this ... where the presence of heroin itself, not a mere blackened residue on a spoon, was discovered." (See also People v. Camp (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 244, 249, 163 Cal.Rptr. 510 [following Karmelich]; People v. Mardian (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 16, 45, 121 Cal.Rptr. 269 []; People v. Schenk (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 233, 238-239, 101 Cal.Rptr. 75 []; People v. Pohle (1971) 20 Cal.App.3d 78, 82, 97 Cal.Rptr. 364 []; People v. Piper (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 248, 250, 96 Cal.Rptr. 643 [ ].)
The chemical analysis of the material possessed need only establish the existence of a controlled substance. A quantitative analysis establishing the purity of the controlled substance is not required. (People v. Karmelich, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at p. 455, 154 Cal.Rptr. 842 [ ]; People v. Harris (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 498, 501, 93 Cal.Rptr. 285 []; People v. Carmical (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 103, 108, 107, 65 Cal.Rptr. 504 [ ].)
These cases make clear, and we agree, that the Leal usable-quantity rule prohibits conviction only when the substance possessed simply cannot be used, such as when it is a blackened residue or a useless trace. It does not extend to a substance containing contraband, even if not pure, if the substance is in a form and quantity that can be used. No particular purity or narcotic effect need be proven.
The Court of Appeal relied on People v. Johnson, supra, 5 Cal.App.3d 844, 85 Cal.Rptr. 238. "Certain language in Johnson is subject to inference that one necessary ingredient of the crime of possession is that the quantity in question must be 'usable' in the sense that it be capable of producing a drug effect on the user." (People v. Schenk, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d at p. 238, 101 Cal.Rptr. 75.) However, as explained in Schenk, supra, 24 Cal.App.3d at page 238, 101 Cal.Rptr. 75, subsequent cases, including People v. Pohle, supra, 20 Cal.App.3d 78, 97 Cal.Rptr. 364, decided by the same court, are inconsistent with such an implication. In Johnson, unlike this case, the trial court did not instruct the jury that the substance must be " 'in an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Reed
...a narcotic." People v. Johnson (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 844, 85 Cal.Rptr. 238, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Rubacalba (1993) 6 Cal.4th 62, 66, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 628, 859 P.2d 708, held that the defendant could not be convicted of both possessing restricted dangerous drugs (Health & Saf......
-
People v. Jaffe, H026265.
...case law (People v. Leal (1966) 64 Cal.2d 504, 512, 50 Cal.Rptr. 777, 413 P.2d 665, and cases cited in People v. Rubacalba (1993) 6 Cal.4th 62, 64-66, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 628, 859 P.2d 708) when Health and Safety Code section 11370.1 was enacted in 1989. (Stats.1989, ch. 1041, § 1, p. 3609.) The......
-
People v. Morales
...character, to sustain a drug possession charge." (Id. at p. 1241, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 722, 893 P.2d 717; see People v. Rubacalba (1993) 6 Cal.4th 62, 67, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 628, 859 P.2d 708 [speaking of possession].) For example, as hypothesized by counsel at oral argument, another individual could......
-
State v. Blake
..., 519 P.2d 804, 809 n.17 (Alaska 1974) ; Loy v. State , 88 Ark. App. 91, 101, 195 S.W. 3d 370 (2004) ; People v. Rubacalba , 6 Cal. 4th 62, 67, 859 P.2d 708, 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 628 (1993) ; State v. Carbone , 116 Conn. App. 801, 816, 977 A.2d 694 (2009) ; Ayers v. State , 97 A.3d 1037, 1041 (......