People v. Terrazas

California Court of Appeal

People v. Terrazas

108 P.2d 680, 42 Cal. App. 2d 281, 1940 Cal. App. LEXIS 47

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 31, 1940

DocketCrim. 3382

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 108 P.2d 680 (People v. Terrazas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Terrazas, 108 P.2d 680, 42 Cal. App. 2d 281, 1940 Cal. App. LEXIS 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of violating section 11036 of the Health and Safety Code pertaining to the possession of narcotics, after trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals.'

*282 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the people (respondent), the essential facts are:

On March 27, 1940, at about 8:30 P. M., defendant was observed by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department seated in an automobile in the city of Los Angeles. When they approached the ear, defendant threw something from it. The officers arrested defendant and took him to a pile of rubbish near the ear, where they believed the object thrown by defendant had lighted. After a little search they found a package consisting of nine cigarettes containing marijuana. The defendant then said to them, “Well, I threw it.”

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to sustain the findings of fact upon which the judgment was necessarily predicated.

This proposition is untenable. An examination of the record discloses direct testimony of the officers as to each and every fact above set forth, from which it is clear the trial court reasonably inferred that defendant had in his possession the cigarettes containing marijuana. Further discussion of the evidence is unnecessary.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment of guilty of violating section 11036 of the Health and Safety Code pertaining to the possession of narcotics, after trial before the court without a jury, defendant appeals.'

*282 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the people (respondent), the essential facts are:

On March 27, 1940, at about 8:30 P. M., defendant was observed by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department seated in an automobile in the city of Los Angeles. When they approached the ear, defendant threw something from it. The officers arrested defendant and took him to a pile of rubbish near the ear, where they believed the object thrown by defendant had lighted. After a little search they found a package consisting of nine cigarettes containing marijuana. The defendant then said to them, “Well, I threw it.”

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on the ground that there is no substantial evidence to sustain the findings of fact upon which the judgment was necessarily predicated.

This proposition is untenable. An examination of the record discloses direct testimony of the officers as to each and every fact above set forth, from which it is clear the trial court reasonably inferred that defendant had in his possession the cigarettes containing marijuana. Further discussion of the evidence is unnecessary.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Wood, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 P.2d 680, 42 Cal. App. 2d 281, 1940 Cal. App. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-terrazas-calctapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack