People v. Cordero

California Court of Appeal Mar 15, 1966 No. Crim. 2330Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the prosecutor's questioning regarding a prior conviction did not constitute prejudicial misconduct because the trial court found the prosecutor acted in good faith, and the evidence of guilt was not closely balanced. Additionally, the court held that the defendant failed to establish entrapment as a matter of law.

Issues

Whether the prosecutor's questioning regarding a prior misdemeanor conviction constituted prejudicial misconduct.
Whether the defendant was entrapped as a matter of law.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court, unlike that in People v. Roberts, supra, 213 Cal.App.2d 387, made a factual ruling on the question of the prosecutor’s good faith. There is no error in this determination.”

“Furthermore, the prosecutor’s error was not prejudicial under the facts of this case. The evidence was not closely balanced; defendant’s own testimony clearly established his guilt.”

“Our review of the entire record, however, reveals there was no entrapment as a matter of law.”

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Defendant appeals a conviction of two counts of selling marijuana (Health

Saf. Code, § 11531). A female undercover narcotics agent and an informant were investigating illicit traffic in

drugs; they

went to a bar where defendant worked as a bartender. They asked defendant to obtain narcotics for them; their effort was unsuccessful.

The female agent alone then visited defendant at the bar on five additional occasions. They discussed defendant’s painting endeavors and interest in jazz music; she continued to ask him to obtain narcotics for her. After the fifth visit, he procured two marijuana cigarettes for her;

the next

day he obtained for her a tin of marijuana; she paid him $1.00 and $15.

Defendant testified he furnished the marijuana. He explained that he did so because he was an artist with no money; he longed to paint the human form, but could not afford a model; the agent flirted with him; the repeated urgings to procure narcotics, combined with her offer to pose as a model free of charge, finally broke down his resistance to commit the offenses.

On cross-examination defendant answered the prosecutor’s first question by denying any prior felony conviction. The prosecutor then sought to prove a felony conviction by naming the offense and the date and place of conviction, rather than by using the proper method of introducing into evidence a certified copy of the judgment of conviction. The trial court temporarily sustained an objection to this line of questioning and after further routine cross-examination, heard argument in chambers on whether defendant had in fact experienced a prior felony conviction. The prosecutor offered a minute entry certification of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County which stated that defendant, upon another arraignment three years earlier, in 1962, admitted the allegation of a prior felony conviction in 1960. The trial court then examined the record of the 1960 offense, and concluded it indicated that the judgment was pronounced as a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Defendant moved for a mistrial, contending that the prosecutor had not asked the question in good faith because the People’s records indicated that defendant’s sentence was one

[828]

People v. Cordero

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief