People v. Hampton

McCOMB, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of guilty after a trial before a jury of violating section 11500

[240]

of the Health and Safety Code (the unlawful sale of narcotics, to wit, marijuana). He also appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

Questions

First: Was defendant denied .a speedy trial as guaranteed him under article I, section 13, of the California Constitution?

No.

The record discloses that an information was filed against defendant on June 17, 1955, and that the trial was completed July 7, 1955. It is thus apparent that defendant was tried well within the 60-day period specified in section 1382 of the Penal Code.

*

Second:

Was there substantial evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty?

Yes.

A federal narcotics agent testified in detail to the purchase from defendant of a quantity of marijuana, the transaction taking place in the agent’s presence. This testimony, which was believed by the jury, constituted substantial evidence to sustain the verdict.

Third: Did the deputy district attorney commit prejudicial error in his argument to the jury

?

No.

During the course of the prosecutor’s argument to the jury he said: “May it please the Court; Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. It now becomes my privilege to make you the final argument. Right off I want to say I am not throwing in the sponge, as Mr. Casalina led you to believe. I think this man is guilty; I don’t think that he is just a little pusher; I think he is a supplier; and I think he is guilty of this offense.

“Now Mr. Casalina said the guilty man has pleaded guilty, so it is all washed up and we ought to know it. That is not true, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury. I wouldn’t be standing here telling you that if I didn’t believe it. It is my duty as a Deputy District Attorney to only prosecute the people that I believe are guilty. In this ease I sincerely believe Mr. Hampton is guilty.”