People v. Siu

DRAPEAU, J.

Jacob E. Siu, defendant in this ease, was a sheriff’s deputy in Los Angeles County assigned as bailiff to one of the criminal courts. He proposed to a fellow deputy, who was in the sheriff’s narcotic detail, that that deputy supply him with narcotics for sale. Defendant said, “Do you have any connections for narcotics? I want something big. I have a connection that could handle any big quantity we could get.”

The sheriff’s narcotics deputy reported the conversation to his superiors, and was instructed to go along with defendant. So the next time he saw defendant he said to him, “Were you serious about what we were talking about the other day?” Defendant said, “Yes, I would like a large supply of heroin.”

After that the two men had several conversations, arranging for a delivery to defendant. Finally the narcotics deputy told defendant that he “had the stuff.” They agreed to meet at defendant’s home, where he had an office in which he conducted an insurance business on the side. Defendant said he would put the narcotics in his office safe.

The narcotics deputy met defendant outside his home, and delivered to him a package containing white powder. Defendant put the package into his trousers’ pocket. Then they went inside to the office. When defendant opened his safe to put the package into it, the narcotics deputy arrested him.

But the package did not contain heroin, nor any other narcotic. It had talcum powder in it.

Mr. Siu was indicted for the crime of attempt to- violate section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code; (possession, transportation, etc. of narcotics) tried by the court without a jury, the case being submitted on the transcript of proceed

[43]

ings before the grand jury. He was convicted; denied probation; and sentenced to state’s prison. He appeals from the judgment, and from the court’s order denying his motion for a new trial.

The appeal is based entirely upon the fact that the package delivered to defendant when he was arrested contained nothing but talcum powder. Therefore, says the defendant, as no narcotic was involved in the transaction in any way, the corpus delicti of the crime of which he was convicted was not established, the communications between the two officers were in the mere nature of preparation to commit, and the evidence was insufficient to justify the trial court’s finding of guilt.