People v. Carter

Opinion

SIMS, Acting P. J.

As pertinent, defendant Jason Aaron Carter was convicted by jury of possession of cocaine base for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5.)

Following his sentence to state prison, defendant appeals, contending the trial court erroneously denied his motion

in limine

and allowed a police officer, with extensive training and experience in sales of narcotics, to render an expert opinion that defendant possessed rock cocaine for purposes of sale, based on the quantity of the drug possessed (27.4 grams).

Defendant relies on

People

v.

Arguello

(1966) 244 Cal.App.2d 413 [53 Cal.Rptr. 245], which held the trial court erroneously allowed a qualified police officer to render an expert opinion that defendant, who was not a user of heroin, possessed heroin for purposes of sale, based on the quantity of the drug possessed.

{Id.

at p. 421.)

However,

Arguello

is no longer good law, because it has been overruled on this point sub silentio by our Supreme Court in

People

v.

Newman

(1971) 5 Cal.3d 48 [95 Cal.Rptr. 12, 484 P.2d 1356], disapproved on another point in

People

v.

Daniels

(1975) 14 Cal.3d 857, 862 [122 Cal.Rptr. 872, 537 P.2d 1232].

In

Newman,

the defendant was found in possession of eight plastic bags containing methedrine, a restricted dangerous drug. There was no evidence suggesting defendant was a user of methedrine. At trial, a police officer testified the bags were possessed for purposes of sale. Defendant was convicted of possessing a restricted dangerous drug for the purpose of sale and appealed, contending, as relevant, that no substantial evidence showed the drugs were possessed for sale. Holding that the record contained substantial evidence, our Supreme Court said: “With respect to defendant’s purpose or intent to possess the drugs for sale, the officer gave his opinion,