People v. Silvestri
| Decision Date | 15 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3269 |
| Citation | 150 Cal.App.2d 114,309 P.2d 871 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Joseph SILVESTRI, Defendant and Appellant. |
Nathan Cohn, Lawrence Shostak, San Francisco, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of possessing heroin in violation of Health & Safety Code, § 11500.
At approximately 7:30 p. m. on January 4, 1956, the defendant, Joseph Silvestri was standing on the corner of First and Willow Streets, in San Jose, with his brother, Ralph Silvestri. Ralph Silvestri was ill and vomiting. This caught the attention of Police Officer Barnett who then approached the defendant and his brother and inquired who they were and what they were doing in San Jose. The defendant and his brother stated that they had come to San Jose to contract for decorating work with one Ragone. On their way back into town from Ragone's house the lights of their car went out. Therefore, they left the car at a service station at Second and Key Streets and planned to return to San Francisco by bus. Officer Barnett then left, but decided to check their car. When he arrived at the service station at Second and Key Streets, he observed a traffic violator and went to cite him. After Officer Barnett left the defendant and his brother called a taxicab to take them to the bus depot. They had just entered the taxicab when they were accosted by Officers Ballard and Sims, and were again questioned. After telling Officers Ballard and Sims what they had told Officer Barnett, the defendant and his brother proceeded to the bus depot.
Officer Ballard testified that his reason for stopping the defendant and his brother was 'that they looked suspicious to us.' Officer Ballard further testified that the Green Frog Market had been robbed on the evening of January 3, 1956, by a man who was described as 'Five eight, around 35 to 40, Italian or Portuguese descent, with pock marks on his face,' and that in mentally checking this description, the defendant and his brother seemed to fit, although neither one had pockmarks. Officers Ballard and Sims also had information about a 1930 or 1934 grey Dodge coupe without license plates which had been used to 'case' a Lucky Market on December 27, 1955. After questioning the defendant and his brother, the officers proceeded to check the defendant's car which was a 1936 grey or tan Dodge coupe with license plates. After looking at the car, the officers radioed Officer Barnett, informed him of the robbery of the Green Frog Market and agreed to meet him at the bus depot for further questioning of the defendant and his brother. First, the defendant and his brother were questioned in front of the bus depot by all three officers. Then, the defendant and his brother were questioned separately, as one of the officers believed there were discrepancies in their answers. Officers Sims and Ballard questioned the defendant and Officer Barnett questioned Ralph Silvestri. Officer Ballard testified that at this time be observed that the pupils of defendant's eyes were contracted and that this indicated to him that the defendant was possibly under the influence of a narcotic drug. The answers of the defendant and his brother caused the officers of feel that they were not telling the truth. After a cursory search for weapons, the defendant and his brother were apparently arrested without a warrant as robbery suspects and taken to the San Jose police station, the defendant was searched by Officer Ballard and an object later identified as a heroin capsule was found in a package of cigarettes belonging to the defendant. The defendant first denied any knowledge of the capsules in the cigarette package and then admitted that they contained heroin and that he had been using the drug for three years. The defendant was then booked for possessing heroin in violation of section 11500, Health & Safety Code. On trial, the defendant pleaded not guilty. During the trial the only evidence introduced was that of the prosecution. The defendant made appropriate and timely objections to the introduction of testimony and evidence, and was overruled by the court. His contentions on appeal are as follows:
(1) The trial court erred in instructing the jury to determine whether there was reasonable cause for his arrest and search.
(2) The evidence admitted was obtained on illegal search and seizure as there was no reasonable cause for the arrest.
(3) The trial court erred in instructing the jury that if the defendant was under the influence of narcotics at the time of his arrest, he was committing an offense in the presence of an officer as there was no evidence on this point, and the defendant was not arrested on this ground.
Subsection 3 of section 836 of the Penal Code provides that an officer may make an arrest without a warrant when a felony has, in fact, been committed and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it. Reasonable cause has been defined as: 'such a state of facts * * * as would lead a man of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nancy C., In re
...v. Fischer, 49 Cal.2d 442, 446, 317 P.2d 967; People v. Kilvington, 104 Cal. 86, 92, 37 P. 799, (43 Am.St.Rep. 73); People v. Silvestri, 150 Cal.App.2d 114, 117, 309 P.2d 871; People v. Soto, 144 Cal.App.2d 294, 298, 301 P.2d 45; People v. Smith, 141 Cal.App.2d 399, 402, 296 P.2d 913; Peopl......
-
People v. Tyler
...frequently be presented to them if the jury were required to pass on the legality of the search or seizure.' See also People v. Silvestri, 150 Cal.App.2d 114, 309 P.2d 871. No prejudicial error appearing, the judgment and order denying motion for new trial are SHOEMAKER, J., concurs. DRAPER......
-
People v. Ingle
...of a crime. People v. Fischer, 49 Cal.2d 442, 446, 317 P.2d 967; People v. Kilvington, 104 Cal. 86, 92, 37 P. 799; People v. Silvestri, 150 Cal.App.2d 114, 117, 309 P.2d 871; People v. Soto, 144 Cal.App.2d 294, 298, 301 P.2d 45; People v. Smith, 141 Cal.App.2d 399, 402, 296 P.2d 913; People......
-
People v. Nebbitt
...to act (People v. Evans, 175 Cal.App.2d 274, 345 P.2d 947; People v. Hollins, 173 Cal.App.2d 88, 343 P.2d 174; People v. Silvestri, 150 Cal.App.2d 114, 309 P.2d 871). In this connection it should be borne in mind that the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence are matters e......