Garcia

Defendant Abraham Torres Garcia was charged in count one of an information with possession of heroin for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500.5); and in count two thereof with possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11530). Defendant pleaded not guilty to both counts. Trial by jury was waived, and the court found defendant guilty of the crimes charged. Defendant’s motions for new trial and for reduction of count one to simple possession (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500) were denied. Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison. He appeals from the judgment of conviction. 1

On November 24, 1964, a search warrant was issued to Officer Harold Ginder of the Los Angeles Police Department, Narcotic Division, by a judge of the Municipal Court, Los Angeles Judicial District, authorizing the immediate search in the daytime or nighttime, for marijuana, heroin or other narcotic substances, together with any paraphernalia for narcotic packaging and use, of premises at 1305-7 Bast Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, a beer bar under the name of “ Sancho’s” and at 1657 West 12th Street, Apartment No. 1, Los Angeles, and of the persons of Frank Flores Reyna, Joe Flores Gomez, and…

I dissent.

The majority compile in the margin of their opinion those cases involving a “mere informer,” in which nondisclosure of identity was upheld (fn. 5, ante, p. 837), and eases in which disclosure was required (fn. 6, ante, p. 837).

In the latter category of cases, the informer in each instance was a direct participant in the narcotic transaction and thus became “no longer simply an informer. He is a material witness to the criminal act, in fact, he is similar to a feigned accomplice.” (People v. Lawrence (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 435, 450 [ 308 P.2d 821 ].) In People v. Perez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 769 , 772, 773 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 326 , 401 P.2d 934 ], the informer “observed marijuana in defendants’ room” and 1 ‘ the informer was a participant in the crime if it was he who left the marijuana in defendants’ room.” In People v. Hammond (1960) 54 Cal.2d 846, 849 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 233 , 357 P.2d 289 ], “two sales of heroin [were] alleged to have been arranged by and made to an informer. ’ ’ In People v. Kiihoa (1960) 53 Cal.2d 748 [ 3 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 349 P.2d 673 ], the *844 transaction for the sale of narcotics was consummated by the deputy sheriff and the informer jointly. In People v. Durazo…