People v. Rollins

California Court of Appeal Jun 23, 1958 No. Crim. 6118Published

Before: Ashburn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the officers had reasonable cause for the arrest and search, and that the defendant waived any objection to the denial of voir dire by submitting the case on the preliminary hearing transcript.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying voir dire examination regarding the reliability of police informants.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of heroin.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The officers had reasonable grounds for belief that a felony had been committed; they were justified in forcing the door in the circumstances confronting them; the search and seizure were reasonable and fruitful”

“That submission of the cause upon the record of the preliminary hearing effected a waiver of any objection that defendant might have had with respect to the ruling upon his counsel’s suggestion of a voir dire examination.”

[562]

ASHBURN, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of possession of heroin in violation of section 11500" Health and Safety Code. Through counsel appointed by the court he makes two primary contentions, (1) that the court erred in denying voir dire examination of the arresting officers concerning reliability of their informants and the reasonableness of their belief that a felony had been or was being committed, and (2) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of guilty on the charge of possession.

In considering the latter contention we must accept as established all evidence, inferences and intendments favorable to respondent’s case

(People

Newland,

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

Defendant’s arrest occurred on July 15, 1957, at about 8 :30 p. m., in the apartment of William McCormick in the Strange Apartments at Third and Witmer Streets in the city of Los Angeles. Police Officers Jones and O’Grady had received on July 13th information from a confidential informant, whom they had found reliable,' that McCormick was an addict who was selling heroin in that apartment. Officer O’Grady had previously made an arrest upon the basis of information received from this first informant and found him reliable. About a half hour before the arrest on the 15th a second informant told the officers of McCormick’s said activities. Fifteen arrests had" been made pursuant to information furnished by this person; in 12 cases the result had been conviction for sales of narcotics and in three cases conviction for possession. Of course the officers, both of whom knew of these results (Jones said 12 or 13 cases), considered this informant reliable. Believing that McCormick was then in possession of heroin in that apartment and engaged in selling same, the officers, without obtaining a search warrant, procured a pass key from the landlady and opened the door part way.

O’Grady was in the lead and Jones right behind him. Immediately in front of them and in plain sight was defendant Rollins who was standing; seated on a couch and within their view was McCormick. A chain was on the door; when it stopped the opening the officers informed both occupants that they were, under arrest. At once Rollins ran toward a room that the officers thought to be the bathroom and they were correct. They forced the door chain and O’Grady pursued Rollins to the

People v. Rollins

AI Brief

ASHBURN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief