Jessie Villanueva Espinoza and Margaret Espinoza v. United States

Good Law
317 F.2d 275·1963 U.S. App. LEXIS 5411
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 1, 196318346California720 words

Opinion

Opinion

Browning, J.

Appellants’ attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain their convictions arising out of a sale of narcotic drugs on November 16, 1961, must fail if the evidence established that each had possession of the narcotic drugs and neither explained her possession to the satisfaction of the trier of fact. 21 U.S.C.A. § 174 .

1. A government witness testified that appellant Margaret Espinoza had physical possession of the narcotic drugs and delivered them to the government witness at the time of the sale. Margaret offered no explanation of her possession; she simply denied it.

The government’s evidence showed that the purchase of narcotic drugs was arranged in two telephone conversations with appellant Jessie Espinoza, that pursuant to these arrangements government agents went to the home occupied by Jessie and Margaret to complete the purchase, that one hundred dollars was paid over by the agents and counted in Margaret’s presence, and that Margaret then delivered about one-third ounce of heroin to the agents in two rubber condoms. The evidence was sufficient to justify the trier of fact in concluding that Margaret’s possession involved “that type of control from which it…

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.