People v. Williams

• Decision Date: 12 April 1962
• Docket Number: Cr. 10
• Citation: 202 Cal.App.2d 387,20 Cal.Rptr. 740
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Willie WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 740

20 Cal.Rptr. 740

202 Cal.App.2d 387

PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Willie WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 10.

District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

April 12, 1962.

Roslyn Robbins Dienstein, Fresno, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nat A. Agliano, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for respondent.

BROWN, Justice.

This is an appeal by defendant Williams who, with a codefendant one Baiza, was accused by indictment filed March 14, 1961, in Tulare County, of a violation of section 11531 of the Health and Safety Code, a felony, in that on or about March 4, 1961, defendant did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, furnish and give away a narcotic, to wit, marijuana, to Tony Martinez, a State Narcotics Agent. The defendant pleaded 'Not guilty' and, together with codefendant Baiza, came on for trial before a jury on May 11, 1961. Both defendants were found guilty; defendant Williams was denied probation and was sentenced to State Prison.

Martinez and one Mannen, another State Narcotics Agent, were investigating narcotics traffic in the Visalia area. On March 4, 1961, Martinez was in the Hacienda Cafe in Visalia watching a telecast of a prize fight. Defendant was standing near Martinez and when the fight ended, Martinez testified that defendant said to him, 'Robinson needed some of this,' and at the same time simulated the smoking of a marijuana cigarette by placing his hands to his mouth in a covering position. Martinez then asked defendant if there were any 'happenings' which is supposed to mean, 'Is there any marijuana around?' and defendant replied, 'Yes, there's some happenings. * * * I don't see any of the connections around here right now.' Defendant asked Martinez to take him to the Hamburger King where he 'wanted to change clothes and also see a couple of Negro females who might have some stuff * * *.' On the way to the Hamburger King the parties stopped at a place called Memorial Hall in Visalia where defendant said to Martinez that 'he knew a young stud that usually brought pot [marijuana] to the dance.' Defendant went inside but returned in a short time, saying that there was nothing doing. They continued on their way to the Hamburger King and as they were nearing the place Martinez got sick, vomited and said, 'I got to have some stuff.' Defendant said that he always took 'H' presumably meaning heroin), and Martinez asked defendant if there was any around and defendant answered that that was the reason they were going to the Hamburger King because two women there had knowledge of heroin.

Martinez further testified that at the Hamburger King the defendant changed into a rust-colored suit, telling Martinez that he was now dressed for action because the tan-colored suit meant that he was 'hip' and was supposed to make it easier to make connections. He also stated that a tan or rust-colored car would serve the same purpose. The two men then drove back to the Hacienda Cafe, got out of the car and started walking towards the cafe. As they drew near the window of the cafe defendant held Martinez back saying, 'Cool it. I see a stud inside that deals. Just cool it. I'll bring him out.' Defendant then entered the cafe and immediately returned with the codefendant Baiza, defendant telling Baiza that Martinez was a good 'stud.' The parties were introduced and 'Martinez asked Baiza if he had some 'joints,' meaning marijuana cigarettes. Baiza said, 'I've got it on me and I can deal it but I don't know if I trust the colored stud with you.' Martinez told Baiza that defendant was all right and was a friend of his. Baiza then motioned the parties to follow him around the corner of the cafe and then told Martinez that he could sell only one 'joint' at that time; that he had three but was 'saving the other two for a friend of his.' He then handed one to Martinez who gave Baiza a dollar bill and Baiza went back into the Hacienda Cafe. Defendant then said, according to Martinez' testimony, 'Come on, man, let's torch up.' But Martinez said there wasn't enough for both of them and that he was going to go in and get the other two cigarettes from Baiza. He went into the Hacienda Cafe again and persuaded Baiza to sell him the other two cigarettes. Martinez then left, telling Baiza he would return, and turned the three cigarettes over to Agent Mannen. Immediately thereafter, Martinez rejoined defendant at the Hacienda Cafe and asked him about the possibility of obtaining more marijuana. Defendant said that there was always some 'happenings' at a place called Allen's Corner, and they could go over there and 'we can score easy. I know quite a few studs there.' Martinez said he couldn't go and they parted company.

The analysis of the three cigarettes disclosed that they contained marijuana.

Defendant's views of the facts are quite different than the above. Defendant testified in court that he didn't know the codefendant Baiza and had never seen him before the trial of this action. He admitted meeting a 'guy' but didn't think he was in court where both parties were being tried, and said, 'I don't never remember seeing him until this morning.' The defendant denied being with Martinez when he purchased some cigarettes from somebody, claiming that he was in the Hacienda. He admitted drinking some beer with Martinez and admitted that Martinez took him to where his clothes were so that he could change to go to a dance. In some parts of his testimony he denied knowing what marijuana was or what the word 'weed' meant, but later admitted that he did know that 'weed' meant marijuana. He denied that he told Martinez that he might be able to make a contact to obtain heroin, but admitted that he did tell Martinez that he would help him find some weed; denied that he knew anybody at the Hacienda Cafe that had weed; stated that he would have had to be lying if he had told Martinez that he knew somebody who had some; later testified, 'I'll tell you about the weed situation. I think if you take me down there and tell me to hunt some weed I wouldn't go to colored town, I would go over there where those Spanish people is to look for weed. That's where it was.' To the question of whether there were Spanish people in the Hacienda Cafe he stated, 'That's who were there. * * * That would be the onliest place' to look for some weed. He denied knowing what 'torch up' means and didn't remember having any conversation with any Mexican man outside the Hacienda about marijuana or 'joints.'

Agent Mannen testified that he was following Agent Martinez and Williams on that evening and that he saw Williams, Agent Martinez and a Mexican male identified later as Baiza, standing on the sidewalk in front of the Hacienda Cafe.

Defendant Baiza testified in his own behalf and denied knowing defendant Williams; denied ever seeing him before the trial; and could not even recall if Williams was the man with Martinez when the cigarettes were sold. Martinez testified that at the time of the sale Baiza came out of the Hacienda Cafe and refused to do business with Martinez until he knew who this 'stud' was, referring to Williams.

Defendant alleges that the People must prove that the defendant had physical or constructive control of the parcotic; that he was aware of the presence of the narcotic; and that he knew the substance was a narcotic.

We feel that the accused had constructive knowledge of the narcotic. In the case of People v. Henderson, 121 Cal.App.2d 816, 264 P.2d 225 a similar contention was made on the basis that the appealing defendant did not know a package held by his codefendant contained heroin and the defendant himself never had the heroin in his possession. The court there held the proposition to be devoid of merit. The defendant's admission that he took his friend to a certain intersection for the purpose of obtaining heroin and that he did not know whether or not they would split the heroin capsule was considered to be sufficient evidence to sustain an implied finding of knowledge. The admission clearly showed that defendant was an aider and abetter and hence, under the provisions of section 31 of the Penal Code, he was properly found guilty as a principal. At page 818, 264 P.2d at page 226, the court said:

'People v. Sinclair, 129 Cal.App. 320, 19 P.2d 23, 24, relied on by defendant, does not support his thesis, for the court said [at page 322, 19 P.2d at page 24] '* * * [Defendant] argues that it is necessary to show that the person accused has the unlawful article on his person, but he has called our attention to no case so holding; and manifestly such is not the law, because if it were, it would exclude entirely from the operation of the statute cases of joint possession or possession by carrying the illegal article in an automobile or other conveyance, or keeping it in some place under the immediate and exclusive control of the accused.''

We feel that the evidence shows that the defendant knew of the presence of the narcotic; that he went inside and got Baiza; that he was present when the narcotic was transferred and that he knew it was a narcotic because he said he wanted to 'torch up' and he used the word 'weed' in his testimony, and Agent Martinez festified that defendant used that word to him in referring to marijuana.

Defendant also claims that the People had the burden to prove that Baiza had possession of marijuana, which is correct (People v. Carrasco, 159 Cal.App.2d 63, 65, 323 P.2d 129), and that defendant knew that Baiza could furnish marijuana.

In People v. Foster, 115 Cal.App.2d 866, 868, 253 P.2d 50, 51, the court said:

'Mere presence at the scene of the crime standing alone is not sufficient to justify a finding of guilt. [Citation.] The crime of possession of narcotics requires a physical or constructive possession with actual knowledge of the presence of the narcotic substance. [Citation.]

'To show such knowing possession the...