People v. Weathers

California Court of Appeal Aug 4, 1958 No. Crim. No. 3521Published

Before: Draper

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the arresting officers had reasonable and probable cause to arrest the defendant and search his residence based on corroborated information from informants, and that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction for possession of marijuana.

Issues

Whether the police had reasonable and probable cause to arrest the defendant and search his apartment.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant possessed marijuana with knowledge of its narcotic nature.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It would seem difficult to imagine a more convincing case of probable and reasonable cause to believe a felony had been committed by appellant.”

“The weight to be accorded the information upon which the arresting officer acts is a question of fact for the trial court.”

“Both knowledge and possession may, however, be established by circumstantial evidence.”

162 Cal.App.2d 545 (1958) THE PEOPLE, Respondent,

CHARLES WEATHERS, JR., Appellant.

Crim. No. 3521. California Court of Appeals. First Dist., Div. Two.

Aug. 4, 1958. Edward T. Mancuso, Public Defender (San Francisco), for Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, Clarence A. Linn, Assistant Attorney General, and Peter T. Kennedy, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

DRAPER, J.

Defendant, after trial by the court without a jury, was convicted of possession of marijuana and sentenced to prison. He appeals from the judgment and the order denying new trial. His principal contention is that the marijuana was improperly admitted because it was the product of an illegal search and seizure.

In the early evening of October 10, a police officer attached to the Juvenile Bureau interviewed JoAnne, a 14-year-old girl who had been a runaway. She told of visiting appellant's apartment the preceding afternoon with one Ellingham, also a juvenile. She said appellant produced marijuana which he and Ellingham smoked, and that they offered her some. She said that the same evening (October 9), she, appellant and Ellingham went to Ellingham's apartment. Appellant took marijuana with him, smoked it, and offered some to JoAnne and her friend, Susan, also 14 and also a runaway. Following this conversation with JoAnne, the police officer separately interviewed Susan, who fully corroborated the portion of JoAnne's conversation involving her. The officer then, in the early morning of October 11, went to the apartment of Ellingham, who was a Youth Authority parolee. Ellingham confirmed the stories of the two girls as to the marijuana. Additionally, he said that appellant and he had stolen a described automobile at a specified location some days before, and had abandoned it near Land's End in San Francisco. The officer checked the stolen car records and found that they bore out Ellingham's story as to the car. With all this information, the investigating officer and another went to appellant's apartment at 4:30 a.m. October 11, demanded entry, seized a can of marijuana standing in plain sight on the dresser next to the bed occupied by appellant, and arrested him.

[1] It would seem difficult to imagine a more convincing case of probable and reasonable cause to believe a felony had been committed by appellant. He, however, argues that the police officer was not justified in relying upon the statements of a Youth Authority parolee and two admitted violators of the Juvenile Court Law. But it is the credibility of the officer

People v. Weathers

AI Brief

DRAPER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief