People v. Hampton
Before: Lillie
LILLIE, J. Defendants Hampton and Phill were convicted of selling heroin; Hampton appeals from the judgment. Subsequent to the filing of her opening brief the Attorney General moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground it is “sham and frivolous and lacking in appellate objective.” At the hearing on the motion both counsel waived argument and submitted the appeal on the merits and the motion to dismiss on the briefs on file and the record herein.
On November 2, 1962, at approximately 10 a.m. Keyes, an undercover police officer for the narcotics detail, and an informer known as “Big Daddy” met codefendant Phill; Big Daddy told Phill they were looking for “weed” (marijuana). They walked to the corner where they met Rose and after a conversation with her Phill directed officer Keyes to drive them to a hot dog stand where Phill left the car and shortly returned with Milton Law. Keyes told Law he wanted two balloons (heroin) ; when he asked how much they were, Law said $10 each. The officer said he would not give him the money unless he could accompany him; Law agreed if he would stay a distance behind; the officer gave Law a $20 bill. Law told him he could get the balloons at his girl friend’s house in Compton; they drove to defendant’s address where the officer and Law entered the house and met defendant. Although Law talked to her the officer was unable to hear, but he did see him hand her the $20 bill. Defendant said, “I’ll meet you in the car. Go back to the car, I’ll be out”; and returned the $20 bill. Soon defendant joined them and directed the officer to drive to a place where she said they could get the balloons. They stopped several blocks away where defendant and Phill got out and had a conversation with a man on the street; Phill came back to the ear and after a short time defendant returned and handed Law the heroin in two balloons—one yellow and one orange; Law passed them to the officer.
Defendant testified that Law and the officer came to where she lived and that Law handed her $20 and asked if she knew where he might get some narcotics; that she returned the money to him and told him, “no,” that she didn’t want any part of it and rushed them out of the house because she was afraid her husband might come home; that she then went out to the ear, met Phill and Rose, got in and after a short drive asked to get out to use the telephone at a friend’s house; and that she knocked on the door and no one answered so she returned to the car and was driven to the [368]corner near her home and got out. She denied the possession or delivery of narcotics; she admitted she had a prior arrest and was familiar with heroin and that she had made inconsistent statements concerning the transaction at the time of her arrest because she was “more or less going (along) with the officer. ’ ’
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)