People v. Ross

ASHBURN, J.

After a nonjury trial defendant was convicted of possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500). He appeals from the judgment and an order denying his motion for new trial. The only point urged by counsel is insufficiency of the evidence to support an implied finding that defendant had possession and knowledge of the character of heroin which was found in his room. That knowledge,' as well as possession, is an essential element of the crime is now clear.

(People

v.

Winston,

46 Cal.2d 151, 158 [293 P.2d 40];

People

v.

Denne,

141 Cal.App.2d 499, 510 [297 P.2d

451]; People

v.

Antista,

129 Cal.App.2d 47, 50 [276 P.2d 177].)

In examining the integrity of this claim we must accept as established all evidence and all inferences favorable to respondent.

(People

v.

Newland,

15 Cal.2d 678, 681 [104 P.2d 778].) On May 31, 1956, Los Angeles city police officers Swain and Forbes went to a hotel at 711% East Fifth Street in said city, in response to information that there was a dead body in a toilet on the second floor. They there saw such a body propped up against the toilet door. There were several persons gathered around and defendant was one of them. When the police started to question him they observed that

[289]

he was under the influence of a narcotic and thereupon arrested him. He stated that he was a user of narcotics, a fact which was later further verified by needle marks upon his arms, and he volunteered the statement, “You can search my room if you want to because there is nothing in it.” His room was Number 7 on that same floor. He showed it to the police and they entered it with him. Defendant sat on the bed while the officers searched the room. On a closet shelf under some dirty rags they discovered a rubber tissue which was tied in a knot and contained heroin. When it was shown to defendant he said he never saw it before and it probably belonged to his roommate. The word “roommate” is the key to his unsuccessful defense.