People v. Taylor

California Supreme Court May 1, 1959 No. Crim. 6419Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's failure to object to a trial date set beyond the 60-day statutory limit constitutes consent, that testimony regarding an officer's own actions is not hearsay, and that evidence of a defendant's participation in a narcotic transaction through a third party is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Issues

Did the trial court err in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to bring the case to trial within 60 days?
Did the trial court err in admitting testimony regarding the payment of money as hearsay?
Was there substantial evidence to sustain the judgment of guilty for the sale and furnishing of heroin?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“When a defendant fails to object at the time a cause is set for trial beyond the statutory period, consent is presumed.”

“The testimony related only to an act which the witness himself performed, of which he had firsthand knowledge, and relative to which there was a controversy. His testimony was not hearsay evidence.”

“It is not necessary that the buyer deal directly with the seller. The fact that the parties deal with each other through a third party is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of violating section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, after trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals. She also appeals from the order denying her motion for a new trial.

Facts:

About 2 p. m. on July 17, 1957, Police Officer Hunter and Policewoman Pettigrew of the Los Angeles Police Department were sitting in an automobile in a parking lot at the corner of Adams Boulevard and Normandie Avenue. Cecil Scott came up to the ear, and the officers had a 10 or 15 minute conversation with him. Officer Hunter gave Scott $10. Scott then waved to defendant, and she came to the car, where Scott introduced her as his good friend to the police officers. He then mumbled something to defendant, who opened her red handbag, removed therefrom a white paper bindle and gave it to Scott, who immediately gave it to Officer Hunter.

[93]

Officer James H. Carter, a qualified expert in the field of chemistry, analyzed the contents of the bindle and testified that it contained heroin.

Questions:

First.

Did the trial court err in denying defendant’s motion, made pursuant to the provisions óf section 1382, subdivision 2, of the Penal Code, to dismiss the action at the commencement of the trial?

No.

Section 1382 of the Penal Code of California reads in part: “The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the action to be dismissed in the following cases: ... 2. If a defendant, whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial in a superior court within 60 days after the finding of the indictment.”

The record shows that the indictment was filed September 12, 1957, but that no objection was interposed by defendant when she was arraigned on December 26, 1957, or when, after entry of her plea of not guilty on January 2, 1958, the trial date was set for February 11, 1958.

These rules are here applicable :

I- The consent of a defendant that his trial on a criminal charge be set for a date beyond the 60-day limit prescribed in section 1382, subdivision 2, of the Penal Code is equivalent to a postponement upon his application within the meaning of that section.

People v. Taylor

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief