People v. Sanders

California Court of Appeal Aug 25, 1958 No. Crim. 3511Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while an instruction erroneously implied that knowledge of the narcotic character of a substance was not required, the error was not prejudicial because other instructions and the circumstances of the case sufficiently established the defendant's knowledge. The court further held that evidence of a marijuana cigarette found in the defendant's car after his arrest was admissible to show knowledge of the narcotic's character.

Issues

Whether the admission of a marijuana cigarette found in the defendant's car after his arrest constituted reversible error.
Whether a jury instruction implying that specific knowledge of the nature of a drug is not required for a possession conviction constitutes prejudicial error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The mere fact that the evidence showed an offense other than that charged does not render it inadmissible.”

“Knowledge of the narcotic character of the substance possessed, sold or transported is essential.”

“However, the error was not prejudicial. Other instructions fully advised the jury that appellant could be found guilty only if he knew the narcotic character of the marijuana.”

DRAPER, J.

After jury trial, defendant was found guilty of sale, possession and transportation of marijuana, and was sentenced to prison. He appeals from the judgment.

One Henson, an undercover agent employed by the district attorney, testified that appellant shared with Henson and an

[134]

other the smoking of a marijuana cigarette to show Henson the quality of appellant’s product, sold Henson a quantity of marijuana, drove Henson to the latter’s home to hide the marijuana, and then shared the smoking of another such cigarette.

Appellant asserts error in statements of the prosecuting attorney and in testimony of an inspector, all tending to show the integrity of Henson and the generally poor reputation of the area where the crimes were committed. It is doubtful that these claims of error are well founded. If they were, they could not avail appellant, since no objection was made at trial. (3 Cal.Jur.2d 604.)

The offenses charged were committed August 13, 1957. Appellant was arrested October 15. His automobile was seized at that time and examined next day. A partially smoked marijuana cigarette was found in it, and was introduced in evidence over appellant’s objection. Appellant asserts error in the admission of this evidence. The court instructed the jury that such evidence was not received to show distinct offenses or continued criminality, but only for such bearing as it might have upon appellant’s innocence or guilt of the offenses here charged. (CALJIO 33.) The mere fact that the evidence showed an offense other than that charged does not render it inadmissible.

(People

Peete,

28 Cal.2d 306, 314-315 [169 P.2d 924].) Here the evidence had some tendency to show knowledge by appellant of the narcotic character of the substance sold to Henson. Also, the partially smoked, hand rolled cigarette found in the car could be compared with the two similar remnants, already in evidence, of the cigarettes which Henson testified were smoked by appellant, jointly with others. The fact that the cigarette was found after the charged offenses does not destroy its admissibility.

People v. Sanders

AI Brief

DRAPER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief