Sweeney

People v. Sweeney

Bad Law

1960 Cal. LEXIS 134·55 Cal. 2d 27·9 Cal. Rptr. 793·357 P.2d 1049

Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 16, 1960Crim. No. 6708California8,505 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Dooling, J.

— Defendant was charged with giving away amidone, a narcotic (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500) and with giving a bribe to a deputy sheriff (Pen. Code, § 67). A jury convicted him of both offenses and he was sentenced to the state prison. He appeals from the judgment, the sentence, 1 and the order denying his motion for a new trial.

While defendant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict on the narcotics charge, he makes these assignments of error: (1) the summary dismissal of his affidavit of prejudice; (2) certain rulings on the admission and rejection of evidence; and (3) serious misconduct of both the court and the district attorney. He particularly stresses the impropriety in the admission of evidence and several instances of misconduct to have been so prejudicially erroneous in their cumulative effect as to constitute the denial of a fair and impartial trial. He also argues that the evidence on the bribery charge established the defense of entrapment as a matter of law.

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the People, as we are bound to do following a guilty verdict (People v. Caritativo, 46 Cal.2d 68, 70 [ 292 P.2d 513 ]), it…

035concurrenceinpart Opinion

White, J.

Concurring and Dissenting. — I would affirm the judgment of conviction on the count of the information wherein defendant was accused of giving away a narcotic in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11500, but would reverse the judgment wherein the defendant was charged with giving a bribe to a deputy sheriff (Pen. Code, § 67).

I am satisfied that the factual background surrounding the charge of offering a bribe to Deputy Sheriff Nichols is replete with evidentiary facts which bring it within the rule announced by this court in People v. Makovsky, 3 Cal.2d 366, 369 [ 44 P.2d 536 ] and the other eases relied upon in the majority opinion, and in which cases we find unequivocal denunciation of officers of the law inducing a person to commit a crime which, without such inducement, he would not have committed. True, the law does not frown upon the entrap *52 ment of a criminal and, where an accused has a preexisting criminal intent, the law permits his solicitation by a decoy and, if the accused succumbs to the opportunity offered him by the decoy, there is no inference of unlawful entrapment. However in the case now engaging our attention, the evidence points unerringly to…

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.

Parties

THE PEOPLE
Plaintiff
PAUL WESLEY SWEENEY
Defendant

Judges

Dooling
White

Cites (50)

46 Cal. 2d 68
11 Cal. 2d 73
141 Cal. App. 2d 722
45 Cal. 2d 440
135 Cal. App. 2d 558
42 Cal. App. 2d 578
114 Cal. App. 2d 412
154 Cal. App. 2d 395
50 Cal. 2d 778
53 Cal. 2d 160
53 Cal. 2d 37
20 Cal. App. 146
128 P.2d 420
142 Cal. App. 2d 513
56 Cal. App. 2d 262
72 Cal. App. 2d 75
177 Cal. 356
158 Cal. 145
112 Cal. App. 2d 574
102 Cal. App. 2d 104
138 Cal. App. 2d 35
116 Cal. 682
113 Cal. 80
114 Cal. App. 367
93 Cal. 596
59 Cal. App. 785
47 Cal. App. 2d 34
57 P. 785
154 Cal. App. 2d 835
53 Cal. App. 2d 214
60 Cal. App. 2d 133
318 U.S. 236
41 Cal. 2d 814
111 Cal. App. 2d 1
36 Cal. App. 2d 41
184 Cal. 252
49 Cal. 2d 409
50 Cal. 2d 428
50 Cal. 2d 570
113 Cal. App. 679
44 Cal. 2d 166
39 Cal. 2d 719
3 Cal. 2d 366
41 Cal. 2d 794
40 Cal. 2d 483
44 Cal. 2d 371
53 Cal. 2d 1
8 Cal. 2d 502
37 Cal. 2d 614
177 Cal. App. 2d 201