People v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 25 April 1972 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 20772 |
| Citation | 101 Cal.Rptr. 683,25 Cal.App.3d 132 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Claude William THOMPSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Westwick, Collison & Talaga and Robert J. Graham, Santa Barbara, for defendant and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Herbert L. Ashby, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Criminal Division, William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Appeals Section, Russell Iungerich and Rodney Lilyquist, Jr., Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
A jury found appellant guilty of possession of marijuana, a lesser offense necessarily included in the offense of possession for sale as charged in the indictment. On this appeal from the judgment of conviction he advances the following contentions:
(1) The warrantless search of the trunk in which the contraband was found was unlawful. (2) The prosecutor's questions concerning appellant's prior narcotics offenses constituted prejudicial misconduct. (3) The prosecutor's questions about appellant's silence after being advised of his Miranda rights constituted prejudicial misconduct.
For good reason the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment is not questioned. Overwhelming evidence establishes appellant's guilt to a moral certainty. His own testimony is so thoroughly contradicted and so inherently improbable in material particulars that almost certainly it must have impressed the jury as being transparently false. The record indicates that appellant was engaged in a rather large scale traffic in marijuana. The contraband contained in the two trunks involved in this case weighed over 50 pounds. Its approximate value was $1,750 to $2,000 wholesale and $8,000 retail.
In the early summer of 1969, Terry Warren and Scott Braithwait went to Nebraska from Santa Barbara to harvest marijuana. When they later returned to California they brought with them a trunk containing marijuana. Approximately a month later Sam Anderson and Jim Mohl harvested and sent a trunk of marijuana from Nebraska to Terry Warren in Santa Barbara. Warren, Gregory Huglin and appellant sold the trunk of marijuana for $1,500. Appellant's share was $200 to $300 and three or four pounds of marijuana.
The witness Gregory Huglin, who was granted immunity from prosecution, testified that he, Warren and appellant later planned to harvest and market more marijuana. According to their plan, Warren and Huglin were to go to Nebraska, send a trunk of marijuana back to appellant who would send them some money, and the two would then harvest more marijuana. They would then drive out to the California-Nevada border pulling a U-Haul trailer load of approximately one ton of marijuana. Appellant would meet them at a specified lodge and help transport the marijuana across the border. Appellant spoke of persons in Los Angeles who would buy the marijuana and the expected price was between $50,000 and $75,000. With the proceeds, appellant, Warren and Huglin planned to go to Australia.
In the first part of September, Warren and Huglin made preparations for their trip to Nebraska. Appellant was driving the two of them to the Los Angeles airport when he began to have trouble with his car. They returned to Santa Barbara, stayed at appellant's apartment overnight, and the next morning took a flight from Santa Barbara to Los Angeles. From Los Angeles Warren and Huglin flew to Omaha and then took a bus to Norfolk.
Warren and Huglin located marijuana which apparently grew wild in the Norfolk area and began harvesting it with the help of Sam Anderson, Jim Mohl 1 and other persons from Nebraska. They dried the marijuana in their apartment. Warren and Huglin telephoned appellant almost every evening; they told appellant when the shipment of marijuana would be sent. Appellant was not to pick up the trunk if it no longer had a lock on it. They sent along another smaller trunk because they could not get all of the marijuana into the one trunk.
On the same day that Warren and Huglin sent the marijuana to appellant, September 19, they were arrested by Nebraska State Patrol Officer Eugene Hastreiter who testified at the trial. Officer Hastreiter found the shipping receipt for the two trunks in Warren's car.
On September 20, 1969, Detective Hrock of the Santa Barbara Police Department received a telephone call from Lieutenant Rowe of the Nebraska State Patrol. Rowe advised Hrock that he had two named suspects in custody for violation of (Nebraska) state narcotic laws in connection with marijuana. He also said he had a strong suspicion that the suspects arrested by his department had sent, via air freight, two trunks containing approximately 74 pounds of marijuana to the Santa Barbara area. After preliminary investigation Detective Hrock learned that the two suspects were known to the Santa Barbara Police Department as narcotic users.
On the same day, Paul Harvey, United Air Lines senior agent in Santa Barbara, received a communication from the Omaha office of the airline advising him concerning the shipment of the trunks suspected of containing marijuana. Harvey thereupon called the Santa Barbara Police Department and the officers there indicated that they had received similar information. Harvey informed the police that he was going to open the trunks when they arrived and requested the presence of one of the officers to identify any contraband found. Harvey stated that he had authority to search any package if he had reason to believe that it contained contraband. Officer Hrock told Harvey that he would proceed to the airport and stand by while Mr. Harvey opened the shipment.
Officer Hrock arrived at the airport at about 4 p.m. and contacted Harvey and service manager Carlson. Carlson said that they had authority to open packages suspected of containing contraband.
At about 5 p.m. Flight 842 arrived and Harvey took the two trunks into the baggage room. He unfastened the belt, removed tape from the lock, and opened the smaller of the two trunks. He removed a bag and took out a small sample of substance which he handed to Officer Hrock. The officer inspected the green leafy plant material and concluded that it was marijuana. The bag was placed back into the trunk, the trunk was resealed, and the two trunks were left in the storage room.
The air freight waybill which accompanied the shipment indicated that the trunks were to be delivered to appellant as consignee and that he could be reached at the airline coffee shop. An airline official attempted to contact appellant but was unable to reach him until about 9:30 or 9:45. Appellant was then informed by telephone that his air freight shipment could be picked up.
Appellant called Don Webber, an employee of Air West, at his home and asked him if he would come to the airport and look at some air freight that he had been expecting. Webber testified that he went to the airport, talked to appellant and then went into the United Air Lines baggage area. When he entered the room, he 'picked up some bad vibrations.' Although he felt that something was wrong, he went back and told appellant that everything was all right as far as he knew. Immediately thereafter appellant went down to the baggage claim area.
Appellant asked the station agent if he had a shipment for Bill Thompson and received an affirmative answer. Appellant signed the delivery receipt and was given the two trunks. He took them out to his car, placed them inside, and locked the doors. Appellant then looked in the direction of one of the officers who was in the area and immediately thereafter began walking back toward the airport lobby. Appellant was arrested about 25 feet from his car.
After appellant was advised of his constitutional rights, he asked, 'Is this about the trunks?' Officer Edward Piceno replied that it would be better for him not to say anything more and that he would be interviewed later by Officer Hrock. Officer Piceno searched appellant and found in his wallet a Western Union money order receipt. The trunks containing the contraband were seized.
Appellant took the stand and testified that in September of 1969, Terry Warren and Greg Huglin told him they were going to Nebraska to go to school. He testified that it was his understanding that they did not plan to harvest marijuana when they left for Nebraska on this occasion although he knew that they had gone to Nebraska for that purpose previously.
Further contradicting the testimony of Huglin, appellant testified that prior to the shipment of the trunks from Nebraska Huglin and Warren called him by telephone and told him that they were returning to Santa Barbara and that they were sending some of their clothing to him by air freight, but that they never told him that they would be shipping marijuana.
Appellant testified that before he received the call from United Air Lines advising him that he could pick up his air freight, he had been receiving telephone calls from unknown persons asking whether he had received any parcels from Warren. This caused him to fear that 'something might be wrong.' Therefore, he called Don Webber and asked him to come to the airport, look at the shipment and see if it looked 'suspicious.' Webber came to the airport, looked at the shipment and said that it seemed all right. Appellant then went and picked up the trunks, placed them in his car and was arrested as he was walking back to the airport coffee shop.
Appellant contends that a search of one of the two trunks of marijuana involved in this case violated the constitutional proscription of unreasonable searches and was made in the absence of any exigent circumstances sufficient to justify the opening of the trunk without a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mata
...v. West, 453 F.2d 1351 (3d Cir.1972); People v. Heflin, 71 Ill.2d 525, 376 N.E.2d 1367, 17 Ill.Dec. 786 (1978); People v. Thompson, 25 Cal.App.3d 132, 101 Cal.Rptr. 683 (1972). Cf. Coolidge, supra. The district court concluded, as a factual matter, that the dog legally belonged to Monica. O......
-
People v. Bleile, Cr. 22891
...the bag without a warrant. (People v. McKinnon, supra, 7 Cal.3d at 916-917, 103 Cal.Rptr. 897, 500 P.2d 1097; People v. Thompson, 25 Cal.App.3d 132, 142, 101 Cal.Rptr. 683; People v. Gordon, supra, 10 Cal.App.3d 454, 460-461, 89 Cal.Rptr. In his attempt to bolster his argument appellant rel......
-
Com. v. Kozak
...found to justify other similar searches. See, e.g., United States v. Berger, 355 F.Supp. 919 (W.D.N.Y.1973); People v. Thompson, 25 Cal.App.3d 132; 101 Cal.Rptr. 683 (1972); People v. Howard, 21 Cal.App.3d 997, 99 Cal.Rptr. 47 (1971). Here there was no possibility the suitcases would be car......
-
People v. Herdan
...Since there was probable cause for the arrest, the search of defendant's vehicle incidental thereto was proper (People v. Thompson, 25 Cal.App.3d 132, 141, 101 Cal.Rptr. 683), even though it followed the question asked of defendant by Cron concerning existence of contraband in the vehicle. ......