People v. Carter

California Court of Appeal May 29, 1967 No. Crim. 11380Published

Before: Kingsley

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction for the sale and possession of marijuana, and that the prosecution was not required to produce a specific informant witness to ensure a fair trial.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for the sale and possession of marijuana.
Whether the prosecution's failure to produce an informant witness denied the defendant a fair trial.
Whether the trial court properly admitted evidence and testimony despite the defendant's objections.
Whether the Miranda ruling applies to a trial that concluded prior to June 13, 1966.

Disposition. affirmed

KINGSLEY, J.

Defendant was charged with violation of Health and Safety Code section 11531 (sale or furnishing of marijuana), and Health and Safety Code section 11530 (illegal possession of marijuana). The public defender was appointed and defendant pied not guilty. On April 16, 1965, the case was called for trial and, on motion of defendant, trial was continued to May 10,1965, time waived. On May 10, 1965, trial was moved from department 116 of the superior court to department 102 of that court for trial the same day. Defendant and all counsel waived trial by jury and defendant was found guilty. On June 4, 1965, motion for new trial was denied.

Francisco Chavez, a Los Angeles police officer, worked as an undercover agent for the Narcotics Division. On December 22, 1964, Chavez and Edward Valencia (a civilian) met defendant at the Belmont Grill where defendant asked Valencia

[402]

whether Valencia wanted to “buy some joints.’’ Valencia agreed. At defendant’s request, Chavez met him in the restroom of the grill where defendant gave Chavez six cigarettes in return for $3. Chavez booked the cigarettes with the property division at the Los Angeles Police Administration Building.

On December 28, 1964, Chavez and Valencia again met defendant. Defendant and Valencia had a conversation which Chavez could not hear. The three men and a man named Buzzard (an undercover officer) went to 6th and San Pedro at defendant’s request where Chavez paid defendant $5 for nine cigarettes.

On December 31, 1964, Chavez and Valencia had two separate transactions with defendant. Defendant asked Chavez and Valencia if they were looking for some “stuff.” Valencia gave defendant two $1.00 bills and Chavez gave defendant 50 cents. At the close of this transaction Valencia inquired if defendant had more. Valencia and Chavez went to defendant’s apartment where another sale took place. The cigarettes were later booked into evidence.

Upon close of examination and cross-examination of Chavez, defendant’s counsel moved that Chavez’ testimony be stricken on the grounds that Valencia could not be found.

Robert Drees, a police officer, testified that he arrested defendant based on a description by Chavez. He advised defendant of his constitutional rights,

People v. Carter

AI Brief

KINGSLEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief