People v. White, Cr. 6320
| Decision Date | 11 February 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6320 |
| Citation | 167 Cal.App.2d 794,334 P.2d 963 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Guilford Vance WHITE, Defendant and Appellant. |
Harry Weiss, Los Angeles, under appointment by the District Court of Appeal, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant White and one Wright were accused, in count 1, with unlawfully possessing heroin; and, in count 2, with unlawfully possessing marijuana. In a nonjury trial, White was convicted on count 1, and was acquitted on count 2. (Wright died prior to the trial.) White was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. No finding was made regarding an allegation in the information that White had been previously convicted of violating section 11721 of the Health and Safety Code, a misdemeanor (being addicted to unlawful use of narcotics). He appeals from the judgment and 'the Court's order.'
Appellant contends that the court erred in refusing to require the prosecution to disclose the name of an informant.
On October 18, 1957, about noon, Officers Cain and Campillo, received information from a confidential informant that one Wright, who resided at a certain address in Los Angeles, used and sold marijuana, that the marijuana would be in the house, and the screen doors were usually hooked with two or three latches. Officer Cain had known the informant about two years, had found on previous occasions that information furnished by the informant was reliable. For a period of time prior to the arrest herein, the officers observed the residence at said address. About 2:45 p. m. of said October 18, they went to the side door of the house and said, in a 'medium' loud voice, 'Police officers'; and they heard a 'walking' noise inside the house. At that time the screen door, which was not latched or hooked, 'was opened' 1 and they observed a female person, who was moving very fast--walking hurriedly, enter a doorway of a room in the house. At that time the officers entered the house and went to the bathroom. While the officers were standing in the doorway to the bathroom (the doorway between the dining area and the bathroom), another door to the bathroom (a door between a front bedroom and the bathroom) was opened, and appellant White was in that doorway, and in his hand there were several 'balloons' of mixed colors. Officer Campillo told appellant to hand the 'balloons' to him (officer). Thereupon appellant handed to him eight 'balloons' which contained white powder. Then the officers took appellant and Wright into the front bedroom (adjoining the bathroom). In that bedroom, the officers found five other 'balloons' and a measuring spoon on top of a dresser. The spoon contained white powder. Appellant and Wright were arrested. Officer Cain testified that, while the articles were being removed from the dresser, appellant said that he came to the address about thirty or forty minutes before the officers came there, that he brought the contents of the balloons to the house, and that it was heroin. The officers found a jar of marijuana on the porch at that place. Officer Cain testified that Wright said that the marijuana was his property.
The white powder in the 'balloons' and the spoon was heroin.
Appellant testified that he arrived at the address (Wright's home) about five minutes before the arrest; he did not bring the 'balloons' there; they did not belong to him; after he entered the house he went into the bedroom, and talked with Wright; suddenly Wright said, 'Here, take these'; then Wright handed the 'balloons' to him and told him to go toward the bathroom; he (appellant) was confused; the police were there immediately; appellant did not tell the officer that the heroin belonged to him (appellant); he did not tell them that he brought the 'stuff' there; while he was at the police station, the officers said that he (White) had stated that the heroin belonged to him; he replied that they had him 'mixed up' with Wright, who had said that it belonged to him (Wright).
Officer Campillo testified (on rebuttal) that, at the time of the arrest, the appellant was asked about the 'balloons' which he had handed to Officer Cain; appellant replied, '[T]hat is all I have'; appellant also said he had been in the house about half an hour.
On cross-examination of Officer Cain, he was asked to state the name of the informant. He replied that he believed that the public interest would suffer if he disclosed the name, and he preferred to have the privilege, under section 1881 of the Code of Civil Procedure, not to answer the question. The objection was sustained.
The arrest and search were made without a warrant.
When the heroin was offered in evidence, appellant objected to the offer on the ground that the heroin was obtained as a result of illegal search and seizure. The objection was overruled. Thereafter, appellant made a motion to suppress 'the evidence' on the ground that there was no probable cause for entering the house and making the arrest and search. The motion was denied.
Appellant contends that since the court did not require the disclosure of the name of the informant, appellant was deprived of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cuda
...to show the legality of the arrest or search. Priestly v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal.2d 812, 818, 330 P.2d 39; People v. White, 167 Cal.App.2d 794, 797-798, 334 P.2d 963. That is the case here. The only reference to an informer was upon cross-examination by counsel for appellants. Cf. Pe......
-
People v. Fisher
...might reasonably infer that contraband was being destroyed. People v. Williams, 175 Cal.App.2d 774, 1 Cal.Rptr. 44; People v. White, 167 Cal.App.2d 794, 334 P.2d 963. Appellant argues that a funnel in the kitchen is normal; that a man having children might well have balloons in his possessi......
-
People v. Tisby
...351; People v. Gutierrez, 171 Cal.App.2d 728, 341 P.2d 54; People v. Amado, 167 Cal.App.2d 345, 347, 334 P.2d 254; People v. White, 167 Cal.App.2d 794, 798, 334 P.2d 963; People v. Brown, 147 Cal.App.2d 352, 356, 305 P.2d 126; People v. Blodgett, 46 Cal.2d 114, 117, 293 P.2d 57; People v. A......
-
People v. McMurray
...People v. Cantely, 163 Cal.App.2d 762, 767, 329 P.2d 993; People v. Amado, 167 Cal.App.2d 345, 334 P.2d 254; People v. White, 167 Cal.App.2d 794, 334 P.2d 963; People v. Steinberg, 148 Cal.App.2d 855, 858-861, 307 P.2d 634. The facts known to the police apart from the information received f......