People v. Slade

• Decision Date: 19 July 1968
• Docket Number: Cr. 2983
• Citation: 70 Cal.Rptr. 321,264 Cal.App.2d 188
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lionel Arthur SLADE and Vannoy Leo Black, Defendants and Appellants.

Page 321

70 Cal.Rptr. 321

264 Cal.App.2d 188

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lionel Arthur SLADE and Vannoy Leo Black, Defendants and Appellants.

Cr. 2983.

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

July 19, 1968.

[264 Cal.App.2d 189] Hubert C. Cavanagh, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Lionel Arthur Slade, defendant and appellant.

Michael S. Hegner, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Vannoy Leo Black, defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Walter R. Jones, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION

GERALD BROWN, Presiding Judge.

Lionel Arthur Slade and Vannoy Leo Black, convicted of possessing marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11530), appeal from probation orders deemed final judgments (Pen. Code, § 1237).

At 4:55 a.m., April 15, 1967, San Diego Police Officer Jacobson very slowly drove his police vehicle on Main Street watching a slowly moving, erratically driven 1955 Chevrolet traveling behind him; slowed down; saw the Chevrolet remaining behind, similarly slowly; pulled to a curb; let the Chevrolet with four occupants pass; started to pursue. Immediately the Chevrolet pulled to a curb and stopped. Jacobson then stopped, turning on his red light to keep the four occupants stationary while awaiting cover. Two men, Salde and driver Black, stepped out and came to the rear of the Chevrolet asking for directions to 39th Street. Jacobson asked for and examined their identification. Black owned the Chevrolet. Officer Boyette arrived; asked Black if there was anything in the vehicle he would not want seen; heard Black's negative answer; asked 'Do you have any objection if I search your vehicle?'; was told by Black 'Go ahead.'

Pushing the upper half of the right front seat forward to get into the rear seat, Boyette observed a marijuana cigarette on the exposed recessed front seat. The officers found 13 marijuana cigarettes hidden behind the dashboard. Both Slade's and Black's pockets contained marijuana debris.

Contrary to their first contention, the marijuana cigarettes found in Black's vehicle, Black's erratic driving, Black's and Slade's quick existing from the Chevrolet, asking a diversionary direction question, and the marijuana debris in their clothing at the time sufficiently support the finding they controlled and maintained dominion over marijuana knowing of its presence and narcotic character (People v. Waller, 260 A.C.A. 139, 150, 67 Cal.Rptr. 8; People v. One 1940 Chrysler, 77 Cal.App.2d 306, 314, 175 P.2d 585; People v. Gory, 28 Cal.2d 450, 170 P.2d 443; People v. Redrick, 55 Cal.2d 282, 10 Cal.Rptr. 823, 359 P.2d 255; People v. Jones, 255 A.C.A. 195, 203, 62 Cal.Rptr. 848; People v. Griffin, 250 Cal.App.2d 545, 552, 58 Cal.Rptr. 707; see Rideout v. Superior Court, 67 A.C. 475, 62 Cal.Rptr. 581, 432 P.2d 197).

Black and Slade tortuously contend the police unlawfully found their marijuana. Jacobson properly stopped, red-lighted, detained and investigated (People v. Mickelson, 59 Cal.2d 448, 30 Cal.Rptr. 18, 380 P.2d 658). Black consented to the search. The request for permission to search implied a choice of granting or refusing the request, and did not require a warning that consent might be refused (People v. Roberts, 246 Cal.App.2d 715, 729, 55 Cal.Rptr. 62; People v. Chaddock, 249 Cal.App.2d 483, 485--486, 57 Cal.Rptr. 582; see also People v. Campuzano, 254 A.C.A. 60, 65, 61 Cal.Rptr. 695; People v. Dahlke, 257 A.C.A. 95, 100, 64 Cal.Rptr. 599; People v. Richardson, 258 A.C.A. 23, 31, 65 Cal.Rptr. 487; People v. Lyles, 260 A.C.A. 62, 67--68, 66 Cal.Rptr. 799).

On direct examination in his own behalf, Slade testified he knew the narcotic nature of marijuana. Over objection the trial court permitted Deputy District Attorney Hewicker to ask 'Have you smoked marijuana before?' and, after a yes response, 'When was the last time?' Slade answered eight to ten months ago. Deputy Hewicker wanted on cross-examination to prove other offenses to prove Slade's knowledge of marijuana's narcotic nature, the very thing Slade had just admitted....