Cotton

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty on two counts of selling heroin. The sole issue on the merits is whether the district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct.

In their brief, the People argued that the appeal was filed too late. On oral argument, the attorney general properly and commendably conceded that the notice of appeal was filed in time. (People v. Slobodian, 30 Cal.2d 362 [ 181 P.2d 868 ].) It is thus unnecessary to pass upon appellant’s motion to augment the record, which deals only with the timeliness of his appeal.

The transactions leading up to the charges here involved occurred in San Francisco on April 1, 1957, and April 6, 1957. John A. Keeys, an undercover agent for the State Bureau of Narcotics testified that he had bought a “paper” from the defendant on each of those dates. The defendant testified that he had met Keeys and talked to him, but denied both sales. The only other witness at the trial was the narcotic chemist who testified to the contents of the “papers” purchased by Keeys. Defendant argues that in a case which turns solel on his credibility and the credibility of Keeys, certain remarks made by the…