Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/99/191.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 16:14:09+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHN MARTIN CASTRO, Defendant and Appellant.
George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Edward P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Gloria F. DeHart and Laurence K. Sullivan, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant, charged in a grand jury indictment with violating Health and Safety Code section 11352 (transporting, selling and furnishing, or giving a way heroin), was convicted by a jury as charged and sentenced to state prison. He now appeals.
The case involves a heroin purchase on February 16, 1977, between the defendant and a paid undercover police informer, Steven Ramey. The defense was entrapment.
Ramey, a convicted felon (who spent some twenty years in prison for three felony convictions--burglary in 1956 and 1964 and escape in 1970) began working as a paid undercover police informer as part of a deal to have drug charges against his wife dismissed. As such undercover agent he worked in Salinas, Palm Springs, San Diego and other areas. Because of this experience he was offered similar employment with the Alameda County Sheriff's office in December 1976. Between January and August 1977, Ramey worked on over 100 investigations leading to the indictment of some 60 persons before he was terminated for his own safety.
During his time of service in the Korean War, he acquired the Bronze Star and Combat Badge and received an honorable discharge. He reenlisted and was dishonorably discharged for possession of a concealed weapon and being AWOL. He had been a heroin addict or user on an irregular basis since 1951.
As a paid informer for the Alameda County's Sheriff's office he agreed to provide information to them and to specifically participate in [99 Cal. App. 3d 195] a "buy program." In that undercover capacity he worked with Sergeant Chavarria of the Alameda County Sheriff's office. He was instructed by Chavarria not to use heroin when he was actually participating in "buys" for Sergeant Chavarria.
At a meeting prior to February 16, 1977, between defendant and Ramey, the former approached Ramey and advised him he could buy $10 worth of heroin from one "Dave" who lived at B and Burbank Streets. Based on this encounter, ramey on February 16, 1977, arranged a buy from defendant. On that day Ramey met with Sergeant Chavarria at the Hayward BART Station. Chavarria made a complete physical search of Ramey and his vehicle but no money or narcotics were found. Chavarria also observed that Ramey was not under the influence of any drug. Chavarria gave Ramey $10 in county funds.
Ramey then drove his own car to the Doggie Diner, a few blocks away, at all times followed and under the surveillance of Chavarria. Chavarria saw Ramey approach the defendant at the Diner and the two men talked for a brief time--not over two minutes. Ramey testified that he asked defendant to get him a $10 bag of heroin and the defendant agreed to take Ramey to "Dave." Ramey and defendant got into Ramey's car with Sergeant Chavarria following in his car and drove some five or six blocks to B and Burbank Streets. While Ramey remained in the car the defendant took the money and approached a house. A third man later identified as Louis Villisano and also known as "Dave" exited the house. Defendant gave Dave the $10 and obtained a red balloon, then returned to the car and gave Ramey the balloon. Ramey and defendant returned to the Doggie Diner in Ramey's car followed by Sergeant Chavarria. Defendant disembarked and Ramey then drove to the same Hayward BART Station where he was again searched by Sergeant Chavarria. Ramey gave Sergeant Chavarria the balloon which contained a substance later tested out to be heroin.
The defendant admitted meeting Ramey at the Doggie Diner and going with him to B and Burbank Streets. He also admitted buying heroin for Ramey from Dave at that location. The only aspect of the transaction on which he and Ramey differed concerned the defendant's state of mind. Hence the defense of entrapment.
Defendant's version of the December 16 meeting with Ramey and the purchase of the heroin from Dave was that Ramey was going through withdrawal and pleaded with defendant for 15 to 20 minutes to get him some heroin until defendant relented, whereupon the purchase with Dave was consummated, i.e. the idea of the purchase originated in Ramey's rather than Dave's mind.
Defendant contends that reversible error was committed by the trial court in its (1) failure to give the requested cautionary instruction on the unreliability of a paid informer who was also a drug addict; (2) failure to review in camera, as requested, the prosecution's jury book list for the purpose of determining the existence of "rap sheet" data which could be the basis for defendant's challenge for cause on voir dire, in violation of the defendant's right to due process of law and a fair and impartial jury; (3) denial of defendant's motion for disclosure of the paid informer's current address, since the informer was a material witness on the issue of the defendant's guilt, and reliance on hearsay evidence in its ruling; (4) failure to award defendant work-time or "good time" credit of 42 days of his presentence term for the 84 days he spent in presentence custody.
The issues on appeal will be taken up in the order set forth above.
1. Was the Defendant Entitled to the Submitted Cautionary Instruction?
Under the given California instructions (Nos. 2.20 and 2.27) the jury was fully alerted to examine and view the informer's testimony in the light of any bias, interest or other motive that may be demonstrated by the evidence.
 2. Should the Court Have Examined the District Attorney's Jury Book?
California case law has consistently found no merit in the contention that a defendant is entitled to inspect the contents of a district attorney's jury book. (People v. Brawley (1969) 1 Cal. 3d 277, 293-294 [82 Cal. Rptr. 161, 461 P.2d 361] [cert. den. 400 U.S. 993 (27 L. Ed. 2d 441, 91 S.Ct. 462)]; People v. Darmiento (1966) 243 Cal. App. 2d 358, 368-369 [52 Cal. Rptr. 428] [cert. den. 386 U.S. 1010 (18 L. Ed. 2d 438, 87 S.Ct. 1353)]; People v. Superior Court (1959) 175 Cal. App. 2d 830 [1 Cal. Rptr. 55, 78 A.L.R.2d 306]; People v. Ruef (1910) 14 Cal. App. 576, 595-596 [114 P. 48, 54]; see generally Annot., 86 A.L.R.3d 571 [overruled on other grounds. Cothran v. San Jose Water Works (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 608, 612 (25 Cal. Rptr. 569, 375 P.2d 449)].) In Brawley, supra, as in the case at bar, the district attorney advised the court that his records did not contain any matters which would furnish the basis for a challenge for cause. The denial for inspection by the court was held not to be error.
[3a] 3. Was the Defendant Entitled to Learn Ramey's Current Address?
Because Ramey was a material witness, the defendant--in the middle of the trial -- sought to get his current address, asserting that this information was necessary to give the defense an opportunity to check out Ramey's reputation in the community for honesty and integrity. The district attorney strongly opposed the request and at an in camera hearing the court heard testimony concerning various threats Ramey had received upon his life stemming from his undercover work, including being shot at and being the subject of a "hit" contract. The trial court found that disclosure would result in a real danger to the witness which outweighed the materiality of the evidence sought and so denied the request. Defendant now contends that this ruling rendered his trial unfair and denied him his right to confrontation and cross-examination. Other than the nondisclosure of his current address, Ramey was otherwise fully available and subjected to intensive cross-examination.
In support of his request for disclosure defendant cites Smith v. Illinois (1968) 390 U.S. 129 [19 L. Ed. 2d 956, 88 S. Ct. 748], and Alford v. United States (1931) 282 U.S. 687, 693 [75 L. Ed. 624, 628, 51 S. Ct. 218], to the effect that the denial of his right to cross-examine a testifying informer concerning his name and address constitutes a denial of due process when the credibility of the informer witness is an issue. In the Smith case, however there was no suggestion of danger to the life of the informer. And in their concurring opinions both Justices White and Marshall noted that under the proper circumstances, where the disclosure would endanger the witness, the court has discretion to keep the information undisclosed.
Recent California cases have considered and discussed the matter. In People v. Brandow (1970) 12 Cal. App. 3d 749 [90 Cal. Rptr. 891], the court held that the defendant was denied a fair hearing when the prosecuting witness' true name was not revealed. In reversing Brandow's conviction of pandering, the appellate court held the trial court had erred in sustaining an objection to a question concerning the prosecuting witness' true name. The two principal witnesses to the events involved in the prosecution were the prosecution witnesses and the defendant. The tape-recorded conversations between these two were vague and subject to various interpretations. Under the circumstances the credibility of the two opposing witnesses bore importantly on the issue of the defendant's guilt. Therefore, the identity of the prosecuting witness was an essential element in the protection of the defendant's right to a fair trial.
[3b] A similar situation is presented here. Evidence was elicited both on direct and on cross-examination that Ramey was a drug addict and a convicted felon, that he worked as a paid police informer and that he used his money to buy heroin. Moreover, defendant was able to produce three witnesses who testified concerning Ramey's drug use and lifestyle. From this record we conclude that defendant was able to produce sufficient environmental background to allow the jury to weigh and assess the testimony of Ramey even without his address.
Appellant contends that under Penal Code sections 4019 and 2900.5 he is entitled to additional credit for good time/work time while in custody before conviction and sentence to state prison. Similar issues are pending before the Supreme Court in People v. Sage, Crim. 20997, People v. Brown, Crim. 20998, and In re Davis, Crim. 20999, hearings granted May 30, 1979.  Because the Supreme Court will ultimately decide the question, we summarily hold that on its face Penal Code section 4019 does not apply to presentence custody of persons convicted of a felony and sentenced to state prison; however, constitutional equal protection of the law principles require that appellant be given credit for good time/work time, if any, as of July 1, 1977, pursuant to section 4019.
The judgment of conviction is affirmed and the cause remanded to the superior court for determination of the amount of good time/work time credit to which appellant may be entitled, if any, under Penal Code section 4019, as of July 1, 1977. The superior court is further directed to prepare a new abstract of judgment and to transmit it to all appropriate authorities.
Elkington, Acting P. J., concurred.
I concur in the majority's opinion, but feel compelled to add that the manipulation of an addict-informer to effect $10 accommodation purchases from fellow "junkies," is an even more unwholesome enterprise than the crime it attempts to suppress.
FN 1. It should be noted that the written instruction submitted by defense counsel did not include any reference to a police informer who is a heroin addict as was mentioned when defense counsel orally requested the cautionary instruction.
FN 2. CALJIC No. 2.27 -- sufficiency of testimony of one witness should be carefully reviewed, was also given.
FN 6. Defendant argues that the evidence presented at the in camera hearing provided no justification for suppression of Ramey's address since much of the evidence of threats was hearsay. This argument is rejected. The testimony of Ramey and the police officers concerning various threats against Ramey's life was not admitted for the truth of the matter stated, but only to show that threats had been made. The testimony was not hearsay. (See Witkin, Cal. Evidence (2d ed. 1966) The Hearsay Rule, §§ 463, 465, pp. 425-427.) It should also be pointed out that some of the testimony at the in camera hearing, not objected to by defense counsel, was sufficient to support the court's ruling, e.g., testimony of Sergeant Chavarria and Ramey as to shots fired at his car; defendant's own threats to Ramey; the Ocean Beach attempt on Ramey's life; and Chief Baugh's testimony as to information he received through police agencies of threat to kill Ramey by hand grenade.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.