People v. Charley Quong

ALLYN, J.,

pro tem.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction on the charge of possession of opium and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. For reversal he depends upon, the insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction and upon an affidavit of one Yee Haw, filed in support of his motion for a new trial, wherein said Yee Haw states that he was the guilty party and that defendant had no knowledge that the opium was on his premises.

There is ample evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that the defendant is guilty. He was arrested on his premises in company with other Chinese after the officers had forced entry. While he had been absent .from Bakersfield for several months he had returned the day before his arrest and had spent the night in his room. At the time of his arrest many articles used by opium smokers were

[139]

spread upon a table in the room in full view. There was a strong odor of opium smoke and a quantity of yen shee, containing more than two per cent of opium was among the articles found on the table. The defense that defendant had no knowledge of the presence of the opium created at most a conflict with the

prima facie

case made out by the prosecution showing that the opium was in his possession. This defense was for the consideration of the jury.

(People

v.

Randolph,

133 Cal. App. 192 [23 Pac. (2d) 777].)

The affidavit of Yee Haw, wherein he admits the ownership of the yen shee and of the smokers’ articles and attempts to exonerate the defendant, is at most corroborative of the latter’s testimony at the trial. The granting of a motion for a new trial in such a ease rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and its judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless it manifestly appears that this discretion has been abused.

(People

v.