People v. Johnson8/3/1976
APPELLATE DEPARTMENT, SUPERIOR COURT, LOS ANGELES
Crim. A. No. 12725
1976.CA.40479 ; 133 Cal. Rptr. 123; 62 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1
August 3, 1976
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT,
v.
ANNE RENE JOHNSON ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS. [AND 4 OTHER CASES.]
Municipal Court for the Los Angeles Judicial District of Los Angeles County, Nos. 31500933, 31519352, 31522004, 31531478, 31531481, Warren H. Deering, James F. Nelson, Everette M. Porter, and Richard M. Moore, Judges.
Burt Pines, City Attorney, Ward G. McConnell, Mark L. Brown and Peter Alan Ross, Deputy City Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jaffe & Jaffe, Jay Jaffe, David A. Elden, Wilbur F. Littlefield, Public Defender, Harold E. Shabo, Saul M. Ferster, G. Keith Wisot, Richard Lastings, H. Reed Webb, Steven Hauser and Martin Stein, Deputy Public Defenders, for Defendants and Respondents.
Opinion by Cole, J., with Marshall, P. J., and Alarcon, J., concurring.
Cole
The question in each of these cases is whether governmental conduct so misled the defendant as to prevent him or her from securing evidence potentially favorable to the defense, thereby depriving the defendant of the opportunity for a fair trial. In each matter the trial court thought that such was the situation and, acting under one or another of various legal theories, dismissed the action. The People appeal in each instance. Later in this opinion we discuss the particular facts of each case and apply to them the applicable general principles of law. We turn now to the common thread which runs among the cases.
In each case the defendant was charged with the misdemeanor offense of using and being under the influence of a controlled substance (an opiate) in violation of section 11550 of the Health and Safety Code. It is highly relevant, in the defense of such a case, for the defendant to prove his innocence through medical evidence that his body did not exhibit symptoms of such usage. Such evidence may consist of chemical analysis of a urine specimen taken within a limited time after the alleged date the offense was committed. It may also consist of testimony of a doctor concerning the results of a physical examination covering such matters as the presence or absence of scab marks on defendant's limbs, body movements, gait, eye response and state of consciousness. It does not take medical school training or law enforcement experience to be aware that in time such symptoms disappear or fade away.
Each defendant, while ultimately charged solely with the misdemeanor offense of using and being under the influence of an opiate, was told at the time of his or her arrest (and in some cases at the time of release
from custody) that the charge was possession of a controlled substance (heroin), a felony, in violation of section 11350 of the Health and Safety Code. In contrast, to the charge of being under the influence of an opiate, evidence as to whether or not a person had used the substance at or shortly prior to the time of arrest is not necessarily relevant to the defense of a charge of possession. To defend against that charge, testimony as to the defendant's physical condition need not be offered, either by the prosecution or the defense. One accused of the crime of possession has, at least in the abstract, no parti
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|