From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gonzales

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Mar 23, 1953
116 Cal.App.2d 843 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)

Summary

In People v. Gonzales (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 843 [ 254 P.2d 603], both the defendant and his fiancee, who were riding together in an automobile, testified that the heroin and marijuana found on her person at the police station belonged to her.

Summary of this case from People v. Roberts

Opinion

Docket No. 4940.

March 23, 1953.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denying a new trial and from a sentence. John J. Ford, Judge. Order affirmed; appeal from sentence dismissed.

Ernest Best for Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, and Michael J. Clemens, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.


Defendant was convicted by a trial judge of two counts of unlawful possession of narcotics — marihuana and heroin. He appeals from a "sentence" that he be confined in the county jail for one year, time to be served concurrently as to both counts. He also appeals from an order denying his motion for a new trial.

Defendant and his fiancee were arrested while riding in an automobile. Heroin and marihuana were found upon the person of the lady when she was searched at the police station.

She first said the narcotics were hers. Then she said they were defendant's. Defendant said they were his.

On the trial the lady testified that the narcotics were hers, and defendant testified to the same effect. But the judge did not believe them.

Defendant argues that because the narcotics were in the actual possession of his fiancee he could not be guilty of possession, that his admission was secured by promise of immunity by the arresting officers, and that the evidence fails to establish that he knew that the articles were narcotics.

Each argument is without merit.

[1] Possession may be constructive as well as actual. And it is for the trial court to draw the inference. ( People v. Graves, 84 Cal.App.2d 531 [ 191 P.2d 32].)

[2] The officers denied making any promises to defendant. Their testimony was sufficient to support the finding that no promises were in fact made. In such circumstances this court will not reverse such a finding. ( People v. Sparks, 82 Cal.App.2d 145 [ 185 P.2d 652].)

[3] And the finding of guilty controls defendant's argument that the proof failed to establish that he knew the heroin and marihuana were narcotics. ( People v. Gory, 28 Cal.2d 450 [ 170 P.2d 433].)

[4] In each instance the evidence supports the finding of the trial court; and in each instance it is to be remembered, as has so often been said, that the finding of the trial court will not be set aside if the evidence is legally sufficient to uphold it. ( People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678 [ 104 P.2d 778].)

The order denying motion for new trial is affirmed. The appeal from the sentence is dismissed. (Pen. Code, § 1237; People v. Tallman, 27 Cal.2d 209, 215 [ 163 P.2d 857].)

White, P.J., and Doran, J., concurred.


Summaries of

People v. Gonzales

Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One
Mar 23, 1953
116 Cal.App.2d 843 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)

In People v. Gonzales (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 843 [ 254 P.2d 603], both the defendant and his fiancee, who were riding together in an automobile, testified that the heroin and marijuana found on her person at the police station belonged to her.

Summary of this case from People v. Roberts
Case details for

People v. Gonzales

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. STELLA GONZALES et al., Defendants; ERNIE CRUZ…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division One

Date published: Mar 23, 1953

Citations

116 Cal.App.2d 843 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)
254 P.2d 603

Citing Cases

People v. White

[3] Appellant's principal contention is that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment because, he…

People v. Roberts

( People v. White (1958) 50 Cal.2d 428, 431 [ 325 P.2d 985].) In People v. Gonzales (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 843…