People v. Ross

After a nonjury trial defendant was convicted of possession of heroin (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500). He appeals from the judgment and an order denying his motion for new trial. The only point urged by counsel is insufficiency of the evidence to support an implied finding that defendant had possession and knowledge of the character of heroin which was found in his room. That knowledge,' as well as possession, is an essential element of the crime is now clear. (People v. Winston, 46 Cal.2d 151 , 158 [ 293 P.2d 40 ]; People v. Denne, 141 Cal.App.2d 499 , 510 [ 297 P.2d 451 ]; People v. Antista, 129 Cal.App.2d 47 , 50 [ 276 P.2d 177 ].)

In examining the integrity of this claim we must accept as established all evidence and all inferences favorable to respondent. (People v. Newland, 15 Cal.2d 678 , 681 [ 104 P.2d 778 ].) On May 31, 1956, Los Angeles city police officers Swain and Forbes went to a hotel at 711% East Fifth Street in said city, in response to information that there was a dead body in a toilet on the second floor. They there saw such a body propped up against the toilet door. There were several persons gathered around and defendant was one of them. When the police started to question him they observed that

The claim is that one David Hamilton occupied the room jointly with defendant from April 28, 1956, the day it was rented to defendant, until May 31st, the day of arrest, and that the proof does not exclude a secret possession of the narcotic by Hamilton and by him alone. Henry Koyama, who owned and operated the hotel, testified that defendant rented the room and signed the register on April 28th; he signed the name David Hamilton as well as his own; the witness had no recollection of seeing Hamilton then or at any later time; he knew no such man; all rents were collected from defendant; the room was occupied by defendant alone during the entire period from April 28th to May 31st, and no one visited it on the last named date. No person named Hamilton was produced at the trial and there is no evidence to raise an inference that Hamilton (assuming his existence) was a user or peddler of narcotics. Defendant’s testimony that he and Hamilton were joint occupants of the room was in the opinion of the trial judge outweighed by the testimony above summarized. Thus disappeared the substance of the defense, for proof that defendant was sole occupant of the room harboring the narcotic raises an inference that he was in possession of the drug and that he had knowledge of its character. (People v. Bassett, 68 Cal.App.2d 241 , 247 [ 156 P.2d 457 ]; People v. Brown, 92 Cal.App.2d 360 , 366 [ 206 P.2d 1095 ]; People v. Oliver, 66 Cal.App.2d 431 , 434 [ 152 P.2d 329 ] ; People v. Shafer, 101 Cal.App.2d 54 , 58 [ 224 P.2d 778 ] ; People v. Ng King, 60 Cal.App.2d 239 , 240 [ 140 P.2d 426 ] ; People v. Coleman, 134 Cal.App.2d 594 , 598 [ 286 P.2d 582 ] ; People v. Cuellar, 110 Cal.App.2d 273 , 278 [ 242 P.2d 694 ].)

Joint occupancy of the room with Hamilton would not

The judgment and order denying new trial are affirmed.

Moore, P. J., and Pox, J., concurred.