People v. Stanford, Cr. 6748

• Decision Date: 18 December 1959
• Docket Number: Cr. 6748
• Citation: 1 Cal.rptr. 425,176 Cal.App.2d 388
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clifford STANFORD et al., Defendants, Jack Charles Coleman, Appellant.

Page 425

1 Cal.Rptr. 425

176 Cal.App.2d 388

PEOPLE of State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clifford STANFORD et al., Defendants, Jack Charles Coleman, Appellant.

Cr. 6748.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

Dec. 18, 1959.

Ellery E. Cuff, Public Defender, Wilbur F. Littlefield and Richard W. Erskine, Deputy Public Defenders, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Marvin L. Part, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FOX, Presiding Justice.

Appellant Coleman was charged, in two counts, with violating section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code: count I, possession of heroin; count II, possession of cocaine. His codefendants were Clifford Stanford, Maurice Leon Willis, and Mrs. Williams. Coleman was convicted on both counts. He has appealed from the judgment and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

At approximately 10:30 p. m. on November 25, 1958, Officers Beckmann, Northrup and Caskey, of the Los Angeles Police Department, accompanied by State Narcotic Inspectors Barry and Gabelson, placed under surveillance the residence at 5543 Smiley Drive. Prior to that time Officer Beckmann had arrested a narcotic user who informed him that defendants Stanford and Mrs. Williams were living at the Smiley Drive address and dealing in narcotics. Stanford was well known to Officers Beckmann and Northrup because of his previous narcotic activities.

Upon arriving at the above address, Inspector Barry recognized a girl sitting in a nearby car as a person he had previously arrested on a narcotics charge. She told the officers that she was waiting for Maurice Willis, who was in Stanford's place buying narcotics. While Officer Beckmann was standing by the front porch of the house, he saw Stanford and Willis leaving by the front door. The officer ran toward them. Just before he reached them Stanford dropped two objects; one was a box and the other a paper receptacle. When Beckmann reached Stanford and Willis he attempted to restrain them. As a result of the encounter, all three men fell to the ground on the lawn in front of the house. When they arose, a yellow balloon was found directly beneath the spot where Willis had fallen. The officer retrieved these objects, which were found to contain heroin and cocaine.

When searched, $2,542 was found on Stanford's person. When the officers entered the house they found Mrs. Williams and Coleman, and arrested both of them.

On searching the premises, Officer Northrup found a balloon containing a white powder and two eyedroppers, with hypodermic needles attached, on a shelf in the bathroom. One of these eyedroppers was approximately half full of a clear liquid, which proved to be an opium alkaloid possessing narcotic properties. They also found a blue balloon in the bathroom which contained heroin. Prior to Stanford and Willis' leaving the house, Officer Northrup had stationed himself beneath the bathroom window. While standing there he heard three male voices and the sound of balloons being snapped. He recognized two of the voices in the bathroom as being those of Stanford and Willis. The only persons later found in the house, besides Mrs. Williams and Willis, were the former's children. Coleman was arrested in the living room. No narcotics were found on Coleman's person or in the living room. Stanford testified that he and defendant Williams lived in the house; that all of the narcotics were his, and he explained his method of purchase and sale. Stanford further testified that Coleman was at his house at his invitation to assist him in taking Mrs. Williams' baby daughter to the doctor. In explanation of the reason why this mission had not already been carried out, he said that they were waiting for the child to wake up. Mrs. Williams denied that Coleman came there for such purpose.

Defendant did not take the witness stand.

In seeking a reversal, appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction in that there is no evidence to show that he had possession of any of the contraband. We have concluded that his position is well founded.

To justify a conviction of unlawful possession of narcotics, the prosecution must prove actual or constructive possession of the contraband by the accused and knowledge of its presence and narcotic character. People v. Gory, 28 Cal.2d 450, 456, 170 P.2d 433; People v. Winston, 46 Cal.2d 151, 161, 293 P.2d 40; People v. Denne, 141 Cal.App.2d 499, 510, 297 P.2d 451. These essential facts may, of course, be established by circumstantial evidence. People v. Robarge, 151 Cal.App.2d 660, 668, 312 P.2d 70. To prove possession, 'the narcotics need not be found on the person of the defendant, it being sufficient if such articles are deposited in a place under the possession and control of the accused [citations].' People v. Vice, 147 Cal.App.2d 269, 274, 305 P.2d 270, 273.

We shall now analyze the evidence. It shows that no contraband was found on the person of the defendant. He committed no furtive act and made no incriminating statement. Nor were any narcotics found in the living room where...