Case Title: State v. Giddings

Citation: 352 P.2d 1003, 67 N.M. 87

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1960-06-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
352 P.2d 1003 (1960) 67 N.M. 87 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alex GIDDINGS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 6637. Supreme Court of New Mexico. June 7, 1960. John Quinn, Hobbs, for appellant. Hilton A. Dickson, Jr., Atty. Gen., Philip R. Ashby, Asst. Atty. Gen., B.J. Baggett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. CHAVEZ, Justice. Appellant, who will hereinafter be referred to as defendant, was convicted of unlawful possession of cannabis indica (marijuana), in violation of Sec. 54-7-13, N.M.S.A., 1953, and appeals. Defendant raises three points upon which he relies for reversal, as follows: (1) That the court, in a possession of narcotics case, should instruct the jury that an essential element of proof on the part of the state is actual knowledge of the presence of the narcotic on the part of the defendant; (2) Insufficiency of the evidence; and (3) Claimed error by the trial court in the course of giving additional instructions to the jury. The record shows that sometime after 12:00 o'clock midnight on the early morning of Sunday, March 1, 1959, while walking on one of the streets of Hobbs, New Mexico, defendant was stopped by a Hobbs city policeman who became suspicious because defendant's suit was dirty and because it was customary to stop all people out on the streets at that time of night. The policeman had defendant get into the police car and sit with him while he filled out an interrogation report. Defendant told the policeman that he had driven a car to the Frey Hotel and was walking back home. When the policeman started filling out the interrogation report defendant told him that he visited with the porter at the Frey Hotel, whereupon the policeman said that he would check on that. The defendant then changed his story and said that he hadn't been in the Frey Hotel and *1004 hadn't seen the porter. The policeman then asked defendant to get out of the car and to put everything in his pockets upon the hood of the automobile. When defendant was taking his coat off the policeman found that he had a pistol in his inside coat pocket. Defendant also had a wad of money, two billfolds, keys and "stuff." After this the policeman testified that he brushed through the defendant's clothes but could find nothing. The policeman then gathered up all of the items that had been in the defendant's pockets from the hood of the car, took them around to the other side of the car and placed them on the front seat. After arresting defendant, the policeman placed him in the police car. At that time defendant reached to open the door with two hands and the policeman saw cigarettes fall to the ground. The policeman backed up, got out of his car and picked up three cigarettes which looked like "roll your own" cigarettes, except they were a little thinner. The policeman then took defendant to the police station and turned the cigarettes over to Deputy Sheriff Bruce McCallum. The cigarettes were placed in an envelope, marked for identification, sealed and mailed to the Department of Public Safety in Austin, Texas, for analysis. The defendant denied that he dropped the cigarettes out of the car and denied any knowledge whatsoever of the cigarettes. A state witness, Mr. Leslie Smith, testified that he was an expert chemist for the Department of Public Safety in Texas and that the cigarettes which were sent to him by the Hobbs police department contained marijuana. The officers testified that defendant was not under the influence of narcotics and seemed perfectly normal when arrested. Defendant's contention under point I is that actual knowledge of the presence of the narcotic on the part of the defendant is an essential ingredient of the offense of possession of narcotics, and that upon this point the jury went uninstructed. The defendant tendered and the court refused the following instruction: The trial court did give this instruction: In California, where this particular question has been repeatedly before the courts, by a consistent long line of decisions, it is well established that in order to sustain a conviction of possession of narcotics, it must be shown that the defendant had either physical or constructive possession, coupled with the knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of the substance. People v. Gory, 28 Cal. 2d 450, 170 P.2d 433; People v. Candiotto, 128 Cal. App. 2d 347, 353, 275 P.2d 500; People v. Winston, 46 Cal. 2d 151, 293 P.2d 40; People v. Rodriguez, 151 Cal. App. 2d 598, 312 P.2d 272; People v. Toms, 163 Cal. App. 2d 123, 329 P.2d 90; People v. Simpson, 170 Cal. App. 2d 524, 339 P.2d 156. In People v. Simpson, supra, one of the defendants contended that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury more fully *1005 on the law as to the required knowledge that the narcotic was in the automobile or under her control, citing People v. Gory, supra; People v. Foster, 115 Cal. App. 2d 866, 253 P.2d 50. It was argued that the court failed to instruct that actual knowledge and possession are necessary for the offense and that mere presence is insufficient. The court did instruct the jury to the effect that [170 Cal. App. 2d 524, 339 P.2d 161]: The above instruction was approved by the appellate court. It has also been held in California that to show such knowing possession the conduct and behavior of the parties, admissions or contradictory statements and explanations are frequently sufficient. People v. Foster, supra; People v. Brickman, 119 Cal. App. 2d 253, 263, 259 P.2d 917. Furthermore, evidence of other acts of similar nature are admissible when not too remote in order to show guilty knowledge of the presence of narcotics by a defendant. People v. Torres, 98 Cal. App. 2d 189, 192, 219 P.2d 480. Also, possession and knowledge that the object is a narcotic drug can be proven circumstantially. People v. Flores, 155 Cal. App. 2d 347, 318 P.2d 65. It should be observed that the New Mexico Statute, Sec. 54-7-13, and the California Statute, Sec. 11500, West's Annotated Health and Safety California Codes, in substance are similar. Sec. 54-7-13, N.M.S.A., 1953, provides: Sec. 11500, West's Annotated California Codes, provides: The state of California in 1959 amended Sec. 11500 by providing a special article prohibiting the planting, cultivating, harvesting and possession of marijuana and providing punishment for a previous conviction (Sec. 11530, Pocket Parts, West's Annotated California Codes), and by providing in another section the prohibition as to possession of narcotics other than marijuana (Sec. 11500, Pocket Parts, West's Annotated California Codes). New Mexico also has a special section prohibiting the possession, planting, cultivation and production of cannabis indica (Sec. 54-5-14, N.M.S.A., 1953). The rulings of the California courts that knowledge is an element of the offense of possession remains as stated by the cases cited. *1006 In State v. Nicolosi, 228 La. 65, 81 So. 2d 771, 773, the court stated the rule as follows: The rule in Louisiana, in part at least, may be governed by the statutory provision of Article 446, supra. See also State v. Johnson, 228 La. 317, 82 So. 2d 24, 30, wherein the court said: In People v. Winston, 46 Cal. 2d 151, 293 P.2d 40, 44, the question was raised on the defendant's proposed instruction that knowledge of the narcotic character of the thing possessed is an essential ingredient of the offense charged. The court said: People v. Gory, supra, and cases cited. The court in the Winston case discusses People v. Gory, 28 Cal. 2d 450, 170 P.2d 433, wherein the facts showed that defendant, a prisoner at the Los Angeles County Honor Farm, shared living quarters with a group of prisoners in a bunkhouse. Each prisoner was issued a small metal box for storage of his personal effects. There was no way of locking the boxes, and during the day a *1007 guard was left in charge of the bunkhouse. Marijuana was found in defendant's box. At the trial defendant, charged with unlawfully having marijuana in his possession, testified that he "had never seen (the material) before the officers removed it from the box." The court then said: The court continued, stating: The instruction found in CALJIC, Criminal, Pt. 7, No. 703, which cites People v. Winston, supra, is as follows: We approve the statement in United States v. Rheams, 2 Cir., 1958, 257 F.2d 842, 843, wherein the following instruction to the jury was approved: Our research discloses a Maryland case, Jenkins v. State, 1957, 215 Md. 70, 137 A.2d 115, which was a prosecution for illegal possession of a narcotic drug and unlawfully carrying a pistol. Jenkins was convicted and on appeal as to the narcotic charge he conceded that he had a narcotic drug in his possession, but argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish the fact that he knowingly had it in his possession. He contended that the circumstances bore out his contention that he merely found the drug in a package and did not know what it was and that the state failed to prove that he knew it was a narcotic drug that he had in his possession. The indictment in the Jenkins case did not allege that appellant willfully or knowingly had the cannabis in his possession, but alleged that he illegally possessed the same. The statute under which he was charged, Art. 27, Sec. 346 (Code 1951), makes it "unlawful for any person to * * * possess, * * * any narcotic drug, except as authorized in this sub-title." The court held that [215 Md. 70, 137 A.2d 117]: In State v. Henker, 50 Wash. 2d 809, 314 P.2d 645, defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, convicted and appealed. Appellant claimed error and contended that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not only that Henker had knowledge of the existence of marijuana on his premises, but that the possession and control thereof was willful and intentional. The Washington statute, RCW 69.33.020 (cf. Laws of 1951, 2nd Ex.Sess., chapter 22, Sec. 2), under which appellant was charged, reads as follows: The prior narcotics act, Laws of 1923, chapter 47, Sec. 3, p. 134, provided: The court held that intent to sell was a necessary element of the crime of possession under the 1923 statute, and held further that had the legislature intended to retain guilty knowledge or intent as an element of the crime of possession, it would have spelled it out as it did in the previous statute. The omission of the words "with intent" evidences a desire to make mere possession or control a crime. Citing cases. The court then said [50 Wash. 2d 809, 314 P.2d 647]: People v. Mack, 12 Ill. 2d 151, 145 N.E.2d 609, 612, was a prosecution for unlawful possession of heroin. The officers found in defendant's apartment 2.2 pounds of white powder stored in cans, bottles and glassine bags, a powder sifter, quantities of manite (described as a laxative powder commonly used to dilute narcotics), rubber gloves, paper sacks and other articles. The defendant denied ownership or knowledge of any of the articles found in the apartment, denied that he ever used or sold narcotics and stated that he had never been arrested or charged with any offense involving narcotics. The court held as follows: After a thorough consideration of the authorities reviewed, we are of the opinion and hold that, in a prosecution for possession of narcotics, it is incumbent upon the state to prove that the defendant had physical or constructive possession of the object or thing possessed, coupled with knowledge of the presence and narcotic character of the object possessed. So holding, the learned trial court was in error in refusing to grant defendant's requested instruction No. 1. Our disposition of this case under point I makes it unnecessary to consider point II. As to defendant's point III, suffice it to say that defendant's contentions are without merit. The court was judicious and considerate in his remarks to the jury. Indeed, it was the duty of the court in the proper administration of justice and in superintendence of the trial proceedings to further instruct the jury as to any reasonable possibility of an agreement being reached. We cannot say that this was an abuse of discretion. State v. Moore, 42 N.M. 135, 76 P.2d 19. For the reasons given, the case will be reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with the views herein expressed. It is so ordered. McGHEE, C. J., and COMPTON, CARMODY and MOISE, JJ., concur.