People v. Henderson

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of violating section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, unlawfully possessing a preparation of heroin) after trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals.

Facts-.

Officer Arrendondo of the Los Angeles City Police Department, assigned to the narcotic division, observed defendant and his codefendant Henderson sitting in an automobile talking to an unknown individual at the corner of Temple and Figueroa Streets. Defendant was in the driver’s seat. The unknown person stuck his head in the window on the passenger’s side, left, then came back to the car and

[817]

after a brief period walked away, whereupon defendant drove his automobile west on Temple Street to the 1000 block on North Hoover, where they were stopped by the officer and placed under arrest. At such time defendant was driving the car. Officer Arrendondo in approaching defendant’s car observed a package drop from Mr. Henderson’s hands to his lap where it was picked up by the officer. It was sealed and booked with the police property clerk. Thereafter the package was examined by a chemist who testified that the contents consisted of a narcotic known as heroin.

After defendant’s arrest, in the presence of his codefendant, two investigators from the district attorney’s office and Officer Walker, Officer Arrendondo asked him what he was doing around Temple and Figueroa Streets. Defendant replied that he had taken his friend down there to “score for a cap.’’

1

When asked what he meant by that, he stated he took his friend down there to “score for a capsule of H.” He was then asked if he was going to split the capsule with Mr. Henderson, and he said he did not know. The statements of defendant were freely and voluntarily made.

Defendant contends that there was no substantial evidence to sustain the conviction because (a) there is no evidence that defendant knew that his codefendant had heroin in the package which Mr. Henderson held in his lap, and (b) defendant never had the capsule of heroin in his possession.

(a) This proposition is devoid of merit. Defendant’s admission to the police officers that he had taken his friend down to Temple and Figueroa Streets for the purpose of obtaining heroin, and that he did not know whether or not he was going to split the capsule with Mr. Henderson, was substantial evidence to sustain the trial court’s implied finding that defendant knew the package which Mr. Henderson had contained heroin.