People v. Cuevas

California Court of Appeal Mar 10, 1955 No. Crim. 5277Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of narcotics where the defendant was found handling the contraband and admitted to assisting in its preparation for use, establishing joint possession.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of a narcotic under Health & Safety Code section 11500.
Whether a defendant's admission of possession requires independent corroborative evidence to sustain a conviction.
Whether exclusive possession is required to convict a defendant of narcotic possession when multiple parties are involved.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To the extent that a guest is to imbibe, smoke or otherwise consume or use merchandise, the guest is a possessor of the commodity.”

“exclusive possession need not be shown where two or more parties are jointly charged.”

“The evidence of inculpatory participation need not be direct nor is it required to extend to very detail of the convict’s crime.”

MOORE, P. J.

From a judgment convicting him of having violated the statute which forbids any person to possess a narcotic (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500) except upon the written prescription of a person licensed to prescribe same, appellant brings his cause here for review. He maintains that the conclusion of the trial court is not justified by the evidence.

The Total Evidence

Defendant Cuevas had for about a year operated a hotel of 30 rooms in Los Angeles. Gregory Villalva was a guest, and had been so for three months prior to the events here related. He worked in the daytime. On the day of his arrest, he arrived at his room about 4:30 p. m., bathed and dressed to go out for dinner. On leaving his room, he met Cuevas who told him they were “invited for a few drinks upstairs.” They went to a room where three girls were serving whiskey.

[395]

They drank the liquor as they listened to the radio. After having satisfied his bibulous thirst, Cuevas told his companion that he had found a shopping bag in the trash can in the alley with something green in it, something like grass and would like to know whether it could be marijuana. The reply was, “I don’t know unless I look at it. I had a previous arrest and I might help if it is marijuana.” After running his hands through it and taking “a handful out” of the bag, appellant told Cuevas it was marijuana. He testified: “As I was running my hands through it, the officer walked in; I was not using it; it was not in my possession; it was not my room. When I entered the room it was already there.”

The drinking party was in room, 16. It was registered to a girl named Mickey who with her sister Carmen and a third girl, stranger to appellant, served the liquor. The marijuana was in the shopping bag at all times so far as appellant knew. He scraped some of it out, smelled it, and told Cuevas what it was. As he dropped the sample into the bag “perhaps some of it fell to the floor.” He told Cuevas it might not be good; might as well get rid of it. He did not smoke any of it. Just as appellant observed the rain and that he could not go out, one of the girls departed through the door and the officers entered.

Although there were cigarette papers in the shopping bag, appellant did not touch them.

People v. Cuevas

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief