People v. Ruiz
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | SHINN |
| Citation | People v. Ruiz, 146 Cal.App.2d 630, 304 P.2d 175 (Cal. App. 1956) |
| Decision Date | 05 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5570 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. George E. RUIZ and Jose B. Delgado, Defendants and Appellants. |
Albert C. Garber, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
George E. Ruiz and Jose B. Delgado were accused of violating Section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code in that they willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in their possession a preparation of heroin. Defendant Ruiz was charged with two prior felony convictions; defendant Delgado was charged with one prior felony conviction. (All three previous convictions were for offenses involving narcotics.) Defendants pleaded not quilty and denied the priors. Trial was to the court. The evidence consisted of that received at the preliminary hearing and additional evidence introduced at the trial. The court found defendants guilty and found the prior convictions to be true. Defendants appeal from the judgment.
There was evidence of the following facts. Jack Gerson, a Los Angeles police officer testified that about 10:15 p. m. Gerson and his partner observed a woman named Alvarado approach and talk to three or four men who were standing on the side-walk at the corner of Seventh and Figueroa Streets in Los Angeles. Suspecting that she might be a prostitute, the officers followed her in their car. She stopped in front of a hotel on North Flower Street, where she met Florence Carreon and Robert Morales on the sidewalk. After a short conversation they entered the hotel, walked down the hall, and entered an apartment.
The officers approached the apartment and listened outside the door. They overheard bits of conversation. Someone inside the apartment said: 'O.K., give me the * * * now.' This indicated to the witness that a narcotics transaction was taking place. Gerson then discovered a small hole in the door of the apartment about two feet above the floor. He denied having drilled the hole himself, although he admitted having drilled such holes in the past. He looked through the hole and saw defendant Ruiz squatting on the floor. Ruiz was holding a rubber fingerstall in his right hand. In his left hand, he was holding up two small balloons. Gerson testified that narcotics are often concealed in rubber balloons. He then saw Ruiz put the balloons in the fingerstall and hand them to someone. He was unable to see the face of the person to whom they were given, but was sure that the recipient was a man. He saw a hand give Ruiz a number of bills, which Ruiz folded and placed in his pants pocket.
The officers then broke into the room, identified themselves, and placed its occupants under arrest. They had no search warrant and no arrest warrant. (Charges against Morales, Carreon and Alvarado were dismissed at the preliminary hearing.) As he entered, Gerson saw Ruiz throw a small object on the floor in the doorway leading from the living room into the kitchen. He found an eyedropper and a hypodermic needle on the floor where he had seen Ruiz throw the object. The other officer found the fingerstall and balloons under an overstuffed chair inside the kitchen doorway. Gerson searched Ruiz and found $80 in the same pants pocket into which he had previously seen him place the bills. All the occupants of the room denied having had any narcotics in their possession, though Florence Carreon told the officer later that Delgado was buying narcotics from Ruiz.
William G. Penprase, a police chemist, testified that he examined the balloons which Officer Gerson had found under the chair. They each contained capsules of heroin.
John R. Sprankle, one of the investigating officers on the case, testified that Delgado wrote and signed a confession in his presence, and that it was freely and voluntarily made. It was introduced into evidence over an objection that the corpus delicti had not been established. The substance of Delgado's confession was that he brought the heroin to Ruiz' apartment with him for his own use and threw it on the floor when the officers broke in.
Defendant Ruiz, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he had lived in the apartment for several days prior to his arrest. There was no hole in the door when he moved in. He admitted having the fingerstall and balloons, but said that Delgado was only showing them to him and that he returned them immediately to Delgado. He admitted knowing that the balloons contained narcotics. He said that he saw the heroin on the floor but did not know who threw it there.
Defendant Delgado, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he brought the heroin to Ruiz' apartment and threw it on the floor when the police entered. He had no money with him and did not pay any to Ruiz; he did not see a hole in the door when he came into the apartment.
At the close of the testimony, defendants moved to suppress the evidence on the grounds that it had been obtained as a result of an unlawful arrest and search. The...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Ker v. State of California
...here came within a judicial exception which had been engrafted upon the statute by a series of decisions, see, e.g., People v. Ruiz, 146 Cal.App.2d 630, 304 P.2d 1 75 (1956); People v. Maddox, 46 Cal.2d 301, 294 P.2d 6, cert. denied, 352 U.S. 858, 77 S.Ct. 81, 1 L.Ed.2d 6 5 (1956), and that......
-
People v. Matthews
...Bielicki v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 602, 21 Cal.Rptr. 552, 371 P.2d 288 (uncapping a pipe to view a toilet); People v. Ruiz (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 630, 304 P.2d 175 (drilling a hole); People v. Regalado (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 586, 36 Cal.Rptr. 795 (boring holes in hotel doors); and Br......
-
People v. King
...States v. Purgitt, 176 F.Supp. 557 (D.D.C.1959); People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 290 P.2d 855 (Sup.Ct.1955); People v. Ruiz, 146 Cal.App.2d 630, 304 P.2d 175 (D.Ct.App.1956); Griffin v. State, supra (200 Md. 569, 92 A.2d 743); Wilkes v. State, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 430, 289 S.W. 44 (Ct.Crim.App.19......
-
State v. Smith
...States v. Purgitt, 176 F.Supp. 557 (D.D.C.1959); People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 290 P.2d 855 (Sup.Ct.1955); People v. Ruiz, 146 Cal.App.2d 630, 304 P.2d 175 (D.Ct.App.1956); Griffin v. State, supra (200 Md. 569, 92 A.2d 743); Wilkes v. State, 105 Tex.Cr.R. 430, 289 S.W. 44 (Ct.Crim.App.19......