People v. Janisse

JEFFERSON, J. In an information filed by the district attorney of Los Angeles County, defendant was charged with illegal possession of marijuana in violation of section 11530, Health and Safety Code. Two prior narcotic laws offenses were alleged, including violations of section 11500 and 11714 of the Health and Safety Code. Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the priors. Trial was by the court, trial by jury having been duly waived by defendant and by all counsel. Defendant was found guilty as charged. Both priors as alleged were found to be true. A probation report was ordered. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied; probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently with any other sentence being served.

A résumé of the facts is as follows:

On or about the 8th of May 1961, about midnight, defendant entered Better Foods Market at 306 East Florence Avenue, Los Angeles, as a customer. George Surber, an off-duty officer of Los Angeles Police Department (also employed as a security officer at the market), observed defendant walk into the market, obtain a loaf of bread and a package of lunch meat; the security officer testified he observed defendant pay for the bread, but not for the lunch meat. He placed him under arrest for “petty theft” and searched him for weapons. Prior to booking defendant at the station, he was asked to take out his personal property and was again searched. During this last search Officer Cox discovered a cigarette wrapped in white paper in defendant’s shirt pocket. It resembled marijuana. Defendant asked Officer Cox to keep quiet about the ■ cigarette and to throw it away. He said he received it from an unknown person at a bar called “Marty’s.” Defendant referred to the cigarette as a “stick of weed” which in narcotic users’ parlance refers to marijuana.

It was stipulated by all counsel at the trial that a qualified expert forensic chemist would testify that in his opinion the cigarette contained marijuana.

[831]Defendant contends it was not legally proper to have stricken out “violation of Sec. 11500” from the typewritten information and to have substituted “violation of Sec. 11530” without such changes having been initialed and dated by the person authorized to make them. This contention is without merit. “ It is only required that the pleading be ‘ in any words sufficient to give the accused notice of the offense of which he is accused.’ (Pen. Code, § 952.) ” (People v. Roberts, 40 Cal.2d 483, 486 [254 P.2d 501].)