Groom

People v. Groom

Good Law
1964 Cal. LEXIS 280·36 Cal. Rptr. 327·60 Cal. 2d 694·388 P.2d 359
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 1964Crim. No. 7435California956 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Peek, J.

The sole contention made by defendant in his appeal from a judgment of conviction for possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11530) is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the judgment. This contention we hold to be without merit.

Subject to the right of the prosecution to introduce additional evidence the cause was submitted to the trial court on the transcript of the preliminary hearing, which contained only the testimony of Officer Madison of the Los Angeles Police Department that at approximately 4:30 a.m. on June 6, 1961, as he and Officer Allen were driving east on Sunset Boulevard in an unmarked patrol car and wearing civilian clothing they observed the defendant walking in the opposite direction; that as the officers passed the defendant he looked over his shonlder toward the patrol car and continued to so *696 watch the officers as they drove on; that the officers likewise continued to watch defendant as they passed; that they then made a U-turn and drove westward back toward defendant; that as they approached the defendant and stopped at the curb, he reversed his direction; that when 15 or 20 feet from the ear he opened his right hand and made a downward…

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.