People v. Torres

• Decision Date: 23 June 1950
• Docket Number: Cr. 815
• Citation: 219 P.2d 480,98 Cal.App.2d 189
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE v. TORRES et al.

Page 480

219 P.2d 480

98 Cal.App.2d 189

PEOPLE v. TORRES et al.

Cr. 815.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

June 23, 1950.

J. M. Lopes, Visalia, for appellants.

Fred N. Howser, Attorney General; Howard S. Goldin, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent.

GRIFFIN, Justice.

Defendants and appellants Juan M. Torres, Mario Garcia Tapia and Alfredo Barela Estrada were charged and convicted by the court sitting without a jury, with the crime of illegal possession of marihuana. The main point involved in this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of possession.

Late at night on November 25, 1949, two officers stopped a Chevrolet sedan being driven by defendant Torres. Defendant Tapia was seated in the back seat at the time. Defendant Estrada was in the front seat with Torres. The unusual weaving of the car, as it proceeded down the highway, attracted the officers' attention. Upon searching it the officers found four marihuana cigarettes, neatly rolled under a blanket which covered the front seat. The boys, when separately questioned, claimed that they had driven to Fresno to a dance or show that evening, denied having any knowledge of the cigarettes being in the car, and told somewhat conflicting stories of their activities in Fresno and as to picking up additional passengers. One defendant claimed they picked up four boys on their return to their home and that all four of these boys sat in the back seat. Another defendant stated that after coming out of the show they picked up four boys and they drove them home; that two of them sat in front and two in the back seat. When questioned by an inspector none of the defendants mentioned about picking up and 'hitch-hikers'. When later questioned by a deputy sheriff they said they picked up one hitch-hiker on the way home and that he sat in the front seat. At another interview they said they picked up three Mexican boys who rode in the back seat and the three defendants rode in the front seat and they all went to a dance.

When the car was stopped by the officers Tapia seemed to be fumbling with something. The driver was nervous when the cigarettes were found. They were discovered in the center of the front seat and were firm, round, in good condition, and not mashed. The officers showed them to the defendants, stating that they believed they were marihuana. Torres replied that they had had other passengers in their car and they must have belonged to them. Defendant Tapia claimed that he did not own the car but borrowed it from one Famio Garcia, about four or five days prior to their arrest. Torres and Estrada stated that Tapia had had the car two or three weeks prior to that time.

Tapia testified on the stand that he had had possession of the car one to three weeks prior to his arrest and that the blanket was over the front seat when he secured it and that he never had removed it; that he did not know the marihuana cigarettes were under the blanket or in the car and that they were not his. On cross-examination this defendant was asked if it were not a fact that in July, 1949, his car was confiscated by the state because it had marihuana in it. Over objection, defendant was ordered to answer the question and he stated that 'In Los Angeles I was caught for that. I gave some boys a ride and they had marihuana with them * * * they didn't return the car back to me.' He was then asked if it were not true that he was in the business of selling marihuana cigarettes, i. e., bringing them up here from Mexicali and peddling them around at various towns. He answered in the negative.

Counsel for appellants claimed prejudicial error in the ruling of the court in the reception of this evidence. The question of the admissibility, because of remoteness, of said evidence rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. People v. Arrangoiz, 24 Cal.App.2d 116, 117, 74 P.2d 789.

The general test of relevancy is whether the evidence tends logically, naturally and by reasonable inference to establish any fact material for the people or to overcome any material matter sought to be proved by the defense. If it does, then the evidence is admissible whether or not it embraces the commission of another offense and whether the other crime be similar or dissimilar. People v. Peete, 28 Cal.2d 306, 315, 169 P.2d 924.

Evidence of other acts of a similar nature may be admitted when not too remote, to prove a material fact, or where it tends to show motive, scheme, plan or system, or to show guilty knowledge and intent. People v. Henderson, 79 Cal.App.2d 94, 119, 179 P.2d 406; People v. Hennessey, 201 Cal. 568, 582, 258 P. 49; People v. Brown, 72 Cal.App.2d 717, 720, 165 P.2d 707; People v. Bercovitz, 163 Cal. 636, 639, 126 P. 479, 43 L.R.A.,N.S., 667.

In the instant case Tapia specifically denied any knowledge of the presence of the four marihuana cigarettes in the car in which they had been transported. The evidence sought to be elicited was relevant to establish this defendant's knowledge of the presence of the marihuana cigarettes in the car, and...