People v. Martin

California Court of Appeal Oct 2, 1946 No. Crim. 4006Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a conviction for possession of a narcotic requires proof that the defendant had knowledge of the presence of the narcotic, and the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on this essential element was prejudicial error.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of a narcotic.
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that knowledge of the presence of the narcotic is an essential element of the crime of possession.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the jury must be convinced that one accused of possessing a narcotic found in a cache on his premises or within reach of his habitation must have knowledge of the presence of such narcotic”

“It was therefore prejudicial to refuse an instruction which would have required the jury to find that the accused knew that the forbidden weed was in his car”

[318]

MOORE, P. J.

Appellant having been convicted of having in his possession a package of marihuana

(cannabis sativa) in violation of section 11160, Health and Safety Code, now demands a reversal of the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial on the grounds of (1) insufficiency of the evidence, (2) an erroneous instruction to the jury and (3) the rejection of proper instructions.

The evidence shows that appellant, an attorney of Bakersfield, accompanied by one Adaline Voss, departed in a blue sedan from that city on August 14, 1945, for San Diego which they reached on the same day. Having continued their sojourn there until August 20, during which they visited Tia Juana, they returned to Los Angeles on the latter date, arriving about 8 p. m. On the way they partook of alcoholic beverages and were engaged in a quarrel as they drove into the heart of the city. The woman became angry and asked leave to alight. Appellant vainly attempted to pacify her but immediately after he had parked the car she departed and he testified that he had never seen her again. After some further tippling at a bar east of Main Street appellant returned to his sedan which stood near the curb at 1323 Channing Street. He imbibed more tequilla as he waited and finally fell asleep.

About 10 o’clock the witness Valdez, who resided nearby, with two companions observed appellant sitting on the right side slumped over a portable radio and other things on the driver’s seat. Having returned about 10:30 from a bus station whence his friends had departed, Valdez attempted to awaken appellant who ordered him to leave. The latter registered at a hotel on West Fifth Street about 2:30 o ’clock the same night and there remained for four days.

At 3 a. m. of the 21st Officers Splane and Muzak observed the blue sedan standing at the Channing Street address, examined its interior, noticed the suit cases, clothing, radio and wine bottle on the front seat, and after searching found and inspected a brown package containing a pound of marihuana on the floor under the right seat. After restoring the package to the place where they had found it the officers parked their own car about 400 feet up the street and watched the sedan and its contraband until 6 a. m. when Valdez, on his way to work, after observing appellant’s absence from the open sedan,

People v. Martin

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief