People v. Williams

Decision Date18 February 1957
Docket NumberCr. 3297
Citation148 Cal.App.2d 525,307 P.2d 48
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Warren WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Warren E. Williams in pro per.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., John S. McInerny, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

COMSTOCK, Justice pro tem.

Appellant and Lester Robinson were accused by information filed in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco of unlawful possession of heroin, a narcotic, in violation of section 11500, Health and Safety Code. An amended information added a charge against appellant of a previous conviction of felony. Both defendants pleaded not guilty to the main charge and appellant denied the alleged previous conviction. A motion by each defendant for a separate trial was denied. The case was tried before a jury on May 1 and 2, 1956 against appellant alone. The record is silent as to why the defendants were not tried together. The jury returned a verdict finding appellant guilty as charged; the allegation of the prior conviction was found to be true. Judgment was duly pronounced and appellant was sentenced to be imprisoned in the State Prison for the term prescribed by law. His appeal is from the judgment.

The record shows that on February 6, 1956, at about 8:30 p. m., Officer Ted Lescher of the San Francisco Police Department observed Warren Williams commit a traffic violation by unlawfully backing his automobile through the intersection of Scott and Ellis Streets in San Francisco. The officer stopped Williams and wrote out a citation. Williams told the officer his address was in the 1500 block on Filbert Street, which was a different address from that shown on his operator's license. Lescher asked Williams the name of the nearest cross street to his home and received an answer that it was 16th Street. Lescher said 16th Street did not cross Filbert and Williams replied that he lived in Oakland, not San Francisco. Asked what his occupation was and why he was in San Francisco, he informed Lescher that he was unemployed and that he had come to San Francisco that evening to keep an appointment with a girl. The officer notice that Williams appeared ill, nervous and fidgety and very drawn. Another traffic violator diverted the officer's attention; he went to issue a citation to the other and while so engaged noticed Williams drive up to the curb on Ellis Street and admit Lester Robinson to his car and drive away. About five minutes later, Lescher saw Williams, with Robinson in his car, driving west on Geary Street, at Scott. He was suspicious and followed them to the corner of Post and Divisadero Streets, where Williams drove into a somewhat crowded Standard service station and pulled alongside the rest rooms. Lescher stopped across Divisadero Street and was there joined by Officer Fletcher. Together they observed Robinson get out of the passenger side of the front seat of Williams' car, which was near the rest room door, and enter the rest room. Williams remained in the automobile behind the wheel. Both officers crossed the street and Lescher approached Williams to further interview him while Fletcher walked up to Robinson who was then coming out of the rest room. Officer Lescher again asked Williams about his address and this time received an answer that he lived in the 2500 block in Oakland. Lescher then proceeded to search Williams. The officer described the search as, 'Just a quick search or 'frisk', for a weapon', and 'Just a hand search, outside of his clothing.' No weapon was found. A sum of money was found in Williams' shirt pocket. During this search of Williams, Robinson stood near the left front fender of the car. Neither Williams nor Robinson was then arrested. The station was well lighted. Lescher thoroughly examined the cement pavement and the area all around the car, using a flashlight as well as the lights from the station. Nothing was found except a small, valueless piece of paper. He stepped to the right front door of the car and attempted to open it. His testimony on this was:

'Q. (Berman) And did you open it? A. I attempted to open it, but it was stuck.

'Q. And what happened then? A. Mr. Williams entered the automobile from the left front door, leaned across the front seat and opened the right front door.

'Q. When the right front door was open, did you observe anything in the automobile? A. I did.

'Q. What did you observe? A. I observed a hypodermic needle lying on the floor of the passenger side of the front seat.

'Q. I will show you here People's Exhibit number 1. The Court: Is that marked 1 for identification?

'Mr. Berman: Yes, Exhibit 1 for identification.

'Q. And ask you if that is the hypodermic needle you found at that time? A. This is. I marked it at the time.

'Q. After you found it, what did you do with the needle? A. I had Mr. Williams and Mr. Robinson come around to the right side of the automobile. Mr. Williams came throught the right front door and I handcuffed them together.

'Q. And they were placed under arrest, is that right? A. They were.

'Q. Did you observe anything on the ground at that time? A. No.

'Q. Did you ever, at any time, observe anything on the ground? A. I did.

'Q. When was that? A. After I had handcuffed both men singly behind their backs, I observed a bindle of white powder and an eyedropper approximately one foot from the left foot of Mr. Williams.

'Q. From the left foot of Mr. Williams? A. That's correct.

'Q. And where was Mr. Robinson in relationship to Mr. Williams? A. On Mr. Williams' right.

'Q. On Mr. Williams' right? A. Yes.

'Q. I will show you here People's Exhibit number 2, eyedropper, and ask if that is the eyedropper you saw at that time? A. That is it. I marked that also.

'Q. And I will show you here People's Exhibit number 3, which appears to be a white piece of paper, containing a white powder. A. That I found also. I have initialed it also--'W' for Williams.

'Q. You put the 'W-TL' on here, is that correct? A. That's correct.

'Q. And you say People's number 3 for identification, and People's number 2--the eyedropper and the one bindle, were found one foot away from the left foot of Mr. Williams? A. That's correct.

'Q. And Mr. Robinson was on his right? A. That's correct.

'Q. Did you find anything else or--I will withdraw that. Did you observe any other narcotic, or any other articles that purported to be narcotics at that time? A. I did.

'Q. And when and where was that? A. I observed Mr. Robinson moving around, and at that time, approximately four feet from Mr. Williams, I observed a packet of white papers falling from what appeared to be the left pants-leg of Mr. Robinson.

'Q. And that was about four feet away from Mr. Williams? A. Approximately.

'Q. Was that before or after you found People's Exhibit number 2 and number 3? A. After.

'Q. Afterwards? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. I will show you here People's exhibit number 4, and ask you if those are the packs of white papers to which you refer? A. These are. I marked each one separately.

'Q. And those are all with your initials 'TL'? A. That's correct.

'Q. Now, how long was it after you observed the condition of ground--the condition of the cement surface of the service station, and found nothing there except the white piece of paper you described, that contained nothing,--how long after that was it that you found People's Exhibits number 2 and 3 next to the left leg of Mr. Williams? A. Not over three minutes.

'Q. Now, was the defendant placed under arrest? A. That's correct.'

Williams' testimony as to this episode was:

'Q. (Postel) What did Officer Lescher do? A. Then Officer Lescher proceeded to search various places, and he went around my car and tried to get into the car from the passenger side, the front door.

'Q. Was he able to get in? A. No.

'Q. So, what did you do? A. Well, I reached over and to assist him. I put the handle down, to let him in the car.

'Q. After the door was opened, what did the officer do? A. Well, he proceeded to shine his flashlight around the car, and he said underneath there, I don't know, he said he found a hypodermic needle.

'Q. Did he place you under arrest at that time? A. Yes, he did. He ordered me out of the car, and he handcuffed me behind my back.

'Q. Was Robinson there then? A. No.

'Q. When did Robinson return. A. Well, I'd say about three minutes after he had handcuffed me behind my back.

'Q. When Robinson came back, what was done? A. When Robinson came back, he asked Robinson did he know me. Robinson said yes, what is the trouble? And he said, well you are under arrest, and then he placed Robinson under arrest. And he took the handcuffs from the other officer and handcuffed Robinson.

'Q. Now, at that time, did you drop anything on to the ground? A. No, I did not.

'Q. On any of these times, did you have any narcotics in your possession? A. I have not. I have never used any narcotics. I have never sold or had anything, any dealings with narcotics.

'Q. I will show you People's number 3, and ask you if you have ever seen that before? A. No, I haven't.

'Q. Did the officer show you anything similar to this at that time? A. Yes, he did. He showed me something similar, but I don't know whether that is it, or not.

'Q. Showing you People's number 4, a group of packets, did you see these at that time? A. Well, yes, I did.

'Q. Had you ever seen them before the officer showed them to you? A. No, I had not.

'Q. Showing you People's number 2, the eyedropper, had you ever seen that before? A. No, I haven't.

'Q. Did you have this with you on that day? A. No, I did not.

'Q. When did you first see this? A. When Officer Lescher said 'What is this?' and he reached under the front wheel of my car and pulled that out.

'Q. Showing you People's number 1, the needle, when did you first see that? A. After Officer Lescher...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • People v. Pineda
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 11, 1967
    ...246 A.C.A. 392, 399, 54 Cal.Rptr. 731; People v. Sedacca (1965) 238 Cal.App. 190, 193, 47 Cal.Rptr. 657; People v. Williams (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 525, 531--533, 307 P.2d 48; and see, Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) § 62, p. 64; and cf. id., § 63, pp. 64--65.) Ineffective Counsel The con......
  • People v. Bracamonte
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 1981
    ...with allegations of charged offenses (People v. Hoerler, supra, 208 Cal.App.2d at p. 408, 40 Cal.Rptr. 687; People v. Williams (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 525, 535, 307 P.2d 48), it does not mandate such a procedure and would not conflict with a two-part trial. In any event, a defendant can waive......
  • People v. Hardy
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 1, 1969
    ...855; Robison v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.2d 186, 187, 316 P.2d 1; People v. Kitchens, 46 Cal.2d 260, 262, 294 P.2d 17; People v. Williams, 148 Cal.App.2d 525, 532, 307 P.2d 48; and see People v. Arguello, 244 Cal.App.2d 413, 421--422, 53 Cal.Rptr. 245.) Here, the record does not disclose any ......
  • People v. Cruz, Cr. 16491
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 1970
    ...den. 381 U.S. 954, 85 S.Ct. 1811, 14 L.Ed.2d 726; People v. Hoerler, 208 Cal.App.2d 402, 409, 25 Cal.Rptr. 209; People v. Williams, 148 Cal.App.2d 525, 535--536, 307 P.2d 48.) The judgment is ROTH, P. J., and FLEMING, J., concur. Hearing denied; PETERS, J., dissenting. WRIGHT, C.J., did not......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT