People v. Barnett

California Court of Appeal Jun 5, 1953 No. Crim. No. 2871Published

Before: Wood (Fred B.)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions for the possession and sale of heroin, as the prosecution failed to establish the defendant's knowledge or possession of the narcotics.

Issues

Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for the unlawful possession of heroin.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for the unlawful sale of heroin.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This is a very tenuous chain of circumstances indeed to support an implied finding that defendant sold the heroin to the operator or that he had possession of the heroin found in the closet.”

“Similarly in our case the evidence is insufficient to prove the defendant sold the heroin to the operator or that he had possession or knowledge of the presence of heroin in the closet.”

118 Cal.App.2d 336 (1953) THE PEOPLE, Respondent,

LOUIS BARNETT, Appellant.

Crim. No. 2871. California Court of Appeals. First Dist., Div. One.

June 5, 1953. A. J. Zirpoli and C. Harold Underwood for Appellant. [337]

Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, and David K. Lener, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.

WOOD (Fred B.), J.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment entered upon a verdict of guilty of two counts, one for unlawful possession of a preparation of heroin, and one for an unlawful sale of heroin, each in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. He has also appealed from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

He bases his appeal upon asserted insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict on either count and errors of law occurring at the trial in respect to the admission and exclusion of evidence. We will consider, first, the sufficiency of the evidence.

The defendant was apprehended by an inspector of the state Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement.

The inspector gave two marked bills to an operator, not identified by name, who was working under his instruction. The inspector observed this operator when she left him and got into an automobile driven by the defendant. The defendant drove off. The inspector followed for about five minutes, after which they left his view. About one and a half hours later the inspector met the operator at Bush and Mason Streets, San Francisco. The inspector knew nothing of the operator's whereabouts during that interval of time. She handed him a paper which contained heroin. Defendant testified that the first time he saw that paper was when he was in court at the preliminary hearing.

The inspector then drove to Haight and Octavia Streets and stopped near 150 Haight Street where the defendant resided. He observed defendant's car unoccupied and unlocked. He searched it but found no narcotics. Defendant then approached the car. The inspector with defendant's key opened the trunk of the car and searched but found no narcotics.

People v. Barnett

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief