Ramirez

People v. Ramirez

Good Law
113 Cal. App. 2d 842·1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1459·249 P.2d 307
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 27, 1952Crim. 4797California1,950 words

Opinion

Opinion

Doran, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment.

The sole contention on appeal is that, “The defendant’s rights were substantially prejudiced by the comments of the trial judge in the presence of the jury.”

Defendant was adjudged guilty by a jury of selling a preparation of heroin in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code.

The facts and trial errors, as they appear in the reporter’s transcript, are as follows: A state narcotic enforcement officer, Mr. O’Connor, and an investigator from the district attorney’s office were checking an area known as TTip.ks Camp in El Monte. Both officers were in plain clothes and using a county car. “They observed one Leiva near the intersection” of two streets and stopped the car. O’Connor testified, quoting from the reporter’s transcript:

The ruling was error but resulted in no prejudice for Leiva later testified the same as the officer. O’Connor testified further:

They then drove to defendant’s home which was about five miles from where the officers met Leiva. 0 ’Connor gave Leiva three five-dollar bills and a ten. The officers had the numbers of the bills for identification. The arrangement between Leiva and the officer was that Leiva…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.