People v. Ford

California Court of Appeal Feb 23, 1927 No. Docket No. 1405.Published

Before: Houser

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for severance, and that the evidence, including admissions and physical evidence of narcotics, was properly admitted to support a conviction for offering to sell narcotics.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for a separate trial for jointly charged defendants.
Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion for a directed verdict when narcotics were not found on the defendant's person.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of a partnership and physical evidence of narcotics found after the arrest.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Under the provisions of section 1098 of the Penal Code, where two or more defendants are jointly charged with any public offense, the decision of whether a motion made by one of such defendants for a separate trial shall be granted rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.”

“It is made clear by a host of authorities that after the relationship between the two defendants had been established, any incriminating statements made by either of them before the offense was committed were admissible in evidence.”

HOUSER, J.

Defendant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully offering to sell narcotics. He appeals from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

On the hearing of the action the following facts appeared in evidence: A man by the name of Donaldson, who was a co-defendant of this appellant, negotiated with a police officer (without knowledge of the latter’s official position) for the sale to him of certain narcotics. At that time Donaldson stated to the police officer that the narcotics which he proposed to sell were in the possession of Ford. Thereafter Donaldson and Ford met the police officer for the purpose of concluding the proposed sale, at which time, after the arrangements for the sale had been fully discussed between

[452]

the parties, Ford discovered that his prospective customer was a police officer, who then arrested both Ford and Donaldson. About three hours later the police officer and two others visited a certain restaurant owned and operated by Ford. In the rear of the place a package rolled in a newspaper which contained numerous bottles and vials or narcotics was found. Before the package was opened Ford stated that it was “a bundle of old laundry”; afterward he admitted to the officers that it was the “stuff” that he wished to sell, and stated in detail his connection with the narcotics, how the several articles came into his possession and his reasons for wishing

sell the same. His co-defendant Donaldson also made many admissions in the presence of Ford regarding the transaction, including the amount of money which, in accordance with the terms of an arrangement between him and Ford, each of them was to receive from the sale of the drugs—which statements were not denied by Ford.

In the information, which resulted in the conviction of the defendants, Ford and Donaldson were jointly charged with the offense of unlawfully offering to sell narcotics; and in a separate information, on which the defendant was not tried, Ford alone was accused of the offense of unlawful possession of narcotics. Appellant specifies as prejudicial error the denial by the trial court of his motion “for a severance and separate trial” from his co-defendant.

People v. Ford

AI Brief

HOUSER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief