People v. Hatton

JONES, J. pro tem.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code of California—unlawful possession of narcotics—and appeals from the judgment of imprisonment imposed upon him and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.

As grounds for reversal he urges that the court erred in denying his motion to advise the jury to return a verdict of not guilty because of alleged lack of evidence, and, secondly, that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict. There is thus presented the single issue of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

(People

v.

Ward,

145 Cal. 736 [79 P. 448].)

When his appeal is on the ground that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury, the burden is on appellant to demonstrate that there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial character to support the verdict upon any reasonable hypothesis whatever. It is not enough that the established facts and circumstances may be reconciled with the innocence of the accused. Before a reversal may be had, the facts must disclose no reasonable basis for any inference other than appellant’s innocence.

(People

v.

Newland,

15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [104 P.2d 778];

People

v.

Hills,

30 Cal.2d

694 [185 P.2d

11];

People

v.

Green,

13 Cal.2d 37 [87 P.2d 821];

People

v.

Perkins,

8 Cal.2d 502 [66 P.2d 631];

People

v.

Finkelstin,