People v. Mason

California Court of Appeal Sep 24, 1969 No. Crim. 13490Published

Before: Files

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant may be convicted of multiple counts for furnishing different types of dangerous drugs in a single transaction, but may not be punished for both conspiracy and the underlying substantive offenses when the conspiracy had no objective apart from those offenses.

Issues

Whether the defense of entrapment was established as a matter of law.
Whether knowledge of a recipient's minority is required for a conviction of furnishing drugs to a minor.
Whether a defendant may be punished for both conspiracy and the substantive crimes that were the object of the conspiracy.
Whether multiple counts are permissible for furnishing different types of dangerous drugs in a single package.

Disposition. modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Penal Code section 654, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, forbids multiple punishment in this situation, where the conspiracy was not shown to have had any objective apart from the offenses for which appellant is being punished”

“A long line of decisions has authorized multiple conviction and punishment where the drugs were chemically of more than one kind, though of the same legal classification.”

rett, were charged by information as follows:

Count I: furnishing seconal to Linda Watson, a minor, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 4234 oh May 7,1965.

Count II: furnishing benzedrine to Linda Watson, a minor, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 4234 on May 7,1965.

Count III: conspiracy to violate Business and Professions Code sections 4230, 4227 and 4234 on May 7,1965, by possessing seconal and benzedrine and furnishing such drugs to Linda Watson.

Overt acts charged in the conspiracy count were (1) defendants ha.d a conversation with Linda Watson, (2) defendant Garrett handed drugs to appellant, and (3) appellant handed drugs to Linda Watson.

[388]

Trial by jury was waived. The court found appellant guilty as charged and imposed consecutive prison terms for the three counts. This appeal is from the judgment.

The essential facts, as shown by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, are these: Linda Watson, aged 16, and a policewoman went to a cafe, where they had a conversation with defendants about furnishing “reds.” At appellant’s suggestion, his eodefendant went to the back of the restaurant and returned with some pills wrapped in a napkin, which she handed to appellant, who handed them to Linda. The latter gave appellant $10 in marked money in payment for the pills. When defendants were arrested a short time later, appellant possessed $8 of the marked money and codefendant Garrett possessed $2 of it. Laboratory examination established that, some of the pills were seconal and some were benzedrine.

Miss Garrett gave testimony tending to place sole responsibility upon herself. Appellant did not testify. The finding of guilt, supported by substantial evidence, is not subject to review here.

(People

Hills

(1947) 30 Cal.2d 694, 700 [185 P.2d 11].)

Appellant contended in the trial court and here that he had been entrapped. This presented a question of fact for the trial court. From the evidence the trial court could reasonably infer that appellant had a preexisting intent, to sell drugs, and that the police merely gave him the opportunity to prove it. On such a finding, the entrapment defense fails.

People v. Mason

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief