Consuegra

People v. Consuegra

Bad Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 800·26 Cal. App. 4th 1726·32 Cal. Rptr. 2d 288·94 Daily Journal DAR 10906·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6014
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 30, 1994Docket Nos. G012799, G013084California3,238 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallin, J.

— Juan Consuegra, Esther Consuegra, Victor Hugo Mejia and Ramon Eugenio Calderon appeal their convictions for conspiracy to possess cocaine for sale and possession of cocaine for sale, with quantity enhancements, contending: (1) the trial court erred by instructing the jury that possession for sale requires only knowledge that the drugs would be sold eventually by someone else; and (2) there was insufficient evidence of substantial involvement to support the quantity enhancements. Juan Consuegra also contends there was insufficient evidence as to the substantive charges and the court erroneously denied his motion to disclose the identity of an informant. We affirm.

On November 4, 1991, police surveilled a condominium in a security complex on Golden Springs in Diamond Bar. They saw Calderon and Mejia drive away in an Oldsmobile to a Lucky’s market, where Mejia made a call from a public telephone while Calderon walked back and forth. About 10 minutes later Juan Consuegra walked up, shook hands with Calderon and talked with him and Mejia. Juan entered the store and the two others departed, Calderon driving the Oldsmobile and Mejia driving a pickup truck with a camper shell.…

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.