People v. Van Syoc

269 Cal. App. 2d 370, 75 Cal. Rptr. 490, 1969 Cal. App. LEXIS 1656

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 3, 1969
• Docket: Crim. 3261
• Status: Published

Opinions

BROWN (Gerald). P. J.

Barton J. Van Syoc, convicted after court trial of possessing marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11530), appeals from a probation order deemed a final judgment. The matter was submitted on the preliminary transcript and physical evidence.

The evidence and the reasonable inferences it raises will be stated most favorably in support of the judgment.

On August 25, 1967, at about 11 p.m. Deputy Sheriffs West and Zucker saw Van Syoc’s car in a parking lot at Moonlight State Beach in Encinitas. Nineteen-year-old Van Syoc and two juvenile companions were approaching the car. Summer curfew was 11 o’clock p.m. and, strange as it may seem from the name, Moonlight State Beach was posted for daytime use only. The officers approached the young men because two of them appeared to be juveniles and the officers were undecided whether the third was a juvenile. Upon approaching the young men, the officers questioned them about their ages and places of residence.

Van Syoc told the deputies he owned the car. He and his companions were from the Los Angeles area. They had come to the beach in the car. Out of the blue, with nothing to suggest or prompt it, Deputy West asked if Van Syoc had any narcotics in the car; Van Syoc replied “No”; Deputy West asked if he could search the ear for narcotics and Van Syoc said “Sure, go ahead.” Deputy West opened the door on the ear’s passenger side and found four marijuana cigarettes mixed with tobacco cigarettes in a Pall Mall cigarette pack on the dashboard. The district attorney tacitly conceded at trial, and the Attorney General expressly concedes in his brief, the Pall Mall package was on the dashboard’s right-hand side. Deputy West arrested the three young men and advised them of their constitutional rights. The other deputy then made a thorough search of the car incident to arrest and found two loose marijuana cigarettes, also on the right-hand side of the dashboard, which apparently West had not seen. There was no evidence of marijuana debris in the car or on the person of any of the three young men.

The facts we have recited are those relied upon by • the parties in their briefs. In addition there was obscure hearsay testimony of Zig-Zag cigarette papers found when - the three young men were taken to the sheriff’s Encinitas office. No evidence indicates where the Zig-Zag papers were found and no attempt was made to connect them with Van Syoc, his ear or his companions.

The trial court denied Van Syoe’s motion to suppress the marijuana evidence under Penal Code, section 1538.5, made on the ground the search was illegal. The court’s finding he had freely and voluntarily consented to the search is supported by the evidence (People v. Cirilli, 265 Cal.App.2d 607, 611-612 [71 Cal.Rptr. 604]).

Van Syoc contends the judgment is unsupported by substantial evidence he knew the marijuana was in his car. This is a necessary element of criminal marijuana possession. (People v. Redrick, 55 Cal.2d 282, 285 [10 Cal.Rptr. 823, 359 P.2d 255].) There was no evidence Van Syoc had any previous contact with marijuana; nothing about his appearance suggested he was a user or possessor of marijuana; he did not use jargon associated with narcotics users; no marijuana debris was found on his person; there was no evidence he was, or appeared to be, under the influence of narcotics; he made no evasive or equivocal statements; and, while Deputy West concluded the three young men acted furtively, he immediately explained that testimony by agreeing they “just seemed nervous” to him, “probably due to the fact that we were police officers in uniform.” Deputy West candidly admitted he had no idea there was any contraband, in the car when he asked permission to search it. The only statements made by Van Syoc related to his identification, ownership of the ear, denial narcotics were in the ear and permission to search.

The record does not inform us how long Van Syoe’s car had been parked in the lot, how long the three companions had been away from the car, whether other cars and other people were in the area or whether the car windows were open or shut. The record does not state who had driven the car and who had been seated on the front passenger side where the marijuana was found. The circumstances of Deputy West’s search indicate the car was unlocked. The evidence does not show Van Syoc was present at any time when the marijuana was on the dashboard. There was no showing whether all three companions stayed in each other’s company, were separated, or whether one or both of the juveniles might have been in the ear when Van Syoc was . absent. Evidence on this subject might circumstantially raise some inference of joint possession or knowledge of what was in plain sight on the car’s dashboard. Whatever inference might be drawn from the record’s silence in this regard would rest on sheer speculation. Speculation cannot substantially support an incriminating inference.

Unless it can be said finding marijuana cigarettes secreted in an ordinary cigarette package in Van Syoe’s ear standing alone raises an inference Van Syoe harbored guilty knowledge of the marijuana’s presence, the judgment convicting him must be reversed. Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to justify a finding of guilt. (People v. Roberts, 228 Cal.App.2d 722, 727 [39 Cal.Rptr. 843].)

At trial the People had tbe burden of proving VanSyoc guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Van Syoe was not required to prove his innocence. Here the parties had agreed in advance of trial the case would be submitted on the preliminary transcript and physical evidence introduced at the preliminary hearing. There were no surprises. The People knew full well the adequacy, or in this case the inadequacy of that record; they knew VanSyoc did not expect to introduce any evidence at trial; and they knew they could not look to Van Syoe, and Van Syoe was not required, to fill the vacuum created by their failure to establish each element of marijuana possession. Van Syoe’s inaction in presenting a ease supporting his innocence does not give substance to evidence relied upon by the People to prove his guilt which otherwise would have no substance.

In no case cited to us has mere ownership of an unlocked car parked in a public area in which marijuana is found and to which the owner has non-exclusive access been held suffi- ' cient to establish the owner possessed the found narcotic with knowledge of its presence. Since there was no independent evidence, either circumstantial or direct, raising any inference Van Syoe had the requisite knowledge, that element of marijuana possession is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Judgment reversed.

Coughlin, J., concurred.