People v. Showers
Decision Date | 27 May 1968 |
Docket Number | Cr. 11945 |
Citation | 68 Cal.Rptr. 459,68 Cal.2d 639,440 P.2d 939 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 440 P.2d 939 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Hugh SHOWERS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Paul A. Jacobs, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and David Gould, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
On April 15, 1966, after a trial without a jury, defendant was convicted of violating Health and Safety Code, section 11500, possession of heroin. He has appealed from the resulting judgment.
Defendant filed notice of appeal on April 15, 1966. It subsequently appeared that the court reporter's notes were unavailable and a transcript of the proceedings could not be prepared. A hearing was held on October 21, 1966, in which the reporter testified that her notes were inadvertently destroyed.
On April 13, 1967, the Attorney General moved the Court of Appeal pursuant to 'rule 36(b)' of the Rules of Court to remand the case to the superior court for the preparation of a settled statement in lieu of a reporter's transcript. Over defendant's objection the motion was granted.
The settled statement reads as follows:
'Mrs. Brown was called as a defense witness and testified that she saw Police Officer Prieto bend down in the ivy at a location which would have been approximately 14 feet away from the location where the appellant had been searching beside the parked automobile.'
Defendant contends that the evidence does not justify the finding that he knowingly possessed heroin.
'Unlawful possession of narcotics is established by proof (1) that the accused exercised dominion and control over the contraband, (2) that he had knowledge of its presence, and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the material was a narcotic.' (People v. Groom, 60 Cal.2d 694, 696, 36 Cal.Rptr. 327, 329, 388 P.2d 359, 361.)
There is substantial evidence which meets the two requirements of guilty knowledge. Defendant was searching for something in the ivy. He testified that he was looking for the $50 which Larry Oliver told him he had lost. Defendant claimed that Larry never returned to look for the money 'because that is where the police stopped him.' No money was found, nor did the trial judge believe that any money was ever lost. In the circumstances defendant's explanation for his three visits to the ivy patch could be found by the trier of fact to be a fabrication. False statements regarding incriminating circumstances constitute evidence which may support an inference of consciousness of guilt. (E.g., People v. Redrick, 55 Cal.2d 282, 288--289, 10 Cal.Rptr. 823, 359 P.2d 255; People v. Osslo, 50 Cal.2d 75, 93, 323 P.2d 397; People v. Ortiz, 185 Cal.App.2d 622, 624, 8 Cal.Rptr. 494; People v. Bagley, 133 Cal.App.2d 481, 484--485, 284 P.2d 36; People v. Foster, 115 Cal.App.2d 866, 868, 253 P.2d 50.) In the instant case, defendant's explanation for his search could be viewed as implausible, and under the circumstances there was substantial evidence that he knew there was a balloon of heroin somewhere in the ivy and that is what he was looking for when arrested by the police.
It is implicit that either defendant, his brother or Larry Oliver was responsible for the presence of the heroin in the ivy patch. Since there is no evidence that these persons jointly possessed the narcotic (cf. e.g., People v. Stanford, 176 Cal.App.2d 388, 391--392, 1 Cal.Rptr. 425 ( ); People v. Hancock, 156 Cal.App.2d 305, 309--310, 319 P.2d 731 ( ); People v. Foster, supra, 115 Cal.App.2d 866, 868, 253 P.2d 50 ( )), there must be substantial evidence that d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Jurado
...of consciousness of guilt. (See People v. Green, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 41, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468; People v. Showers (1968) 68 Cal.2d 639, 643, 68 Cal.Rptr. 459, 440 P.2d 939.) Since the court in Green condoned the reading of CALJIC No. 2.03 in a case involving false statements, it ......
-
People v. Francis
...accused has constructive possession when he maintains control or a right to control the contraband.' (People v. Showers, 68 Cal.2d 639, 643--644, 68 Cal.Rptr. 459, 462, 440 P.2d 939, 942.) 'Possession may be imputed when the contraband is found in a location which is immediately and exclusi......
-
People v. Nudd
...all defendant's extra-judicial statements, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. Nothing in People v. Showers (1968) 68 Cal.2d 639, 68 Cal.Rptr. 459, 440 P.2d 939 (constructive possession of contraband) or People v. Leal (1966) 64 Cal.2d 504, 50 Cal.Rptr. 777, 413 P.2d 665 (usable q......
-
People v. Perry
...(People v. Redrick (1961) 55 Cal.2d 282, 285, 10 Cal.Rptr. 823, 825, 359 P.2d 255, 257. See also People v. Showers (1968) 68 Cal.2d 639, 642--643, 68 Cal.Rptr. 459, 440 P.2d 939; People v. Winston (1956) 46 Cal.2d 151, 158--161, 293 P.2d 40; People v. Gorg (1955) 45 Cal.2d 776, 780, 291 P.2......