Opinion ID: 317126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prejudicial Effect of Testimony concerning One Grain of Heroin Found at Wagner's Apartment

Text: 34 Rosalind Ereneta, chief chemist of the San Diego section of the Los Angeles Customs laboratory, testified that the Government's exhibit 22 is a bag which contained numerous colored balloons. She further testified that on some of these balloons there was a powdery substance which, upon microscopic examination, was found to be heroin hydrochloride. The amount was less than one grain, which is equivalent to a tenth of a gram. The small amount of powder was consumed in the analysis. 35 Wagner argues that the relevance, maateriality and probative value of this 'almost indiscernible' amount of heroin was so infinitesimal with regard to the conspiracy and substantive counts of the indictment that it was completely outweighed by the prejudicial effect of such evidence. Wagner thus invokes the familiar rule that it is error to receive, over objection, evidence the relevance of which is slight as compared to its prejudicial character. See Courtney v. United States, 390 F.2d 521, 528 (9th Cir. 1968). In asserting the lack of probative value of this testimony, Wagner refers to a California decision, People v. Fein, 4 Cal.3d 747, 94 Cal.Rptr. 607, 484 P.2d 583 (1971), for the proposition that evidence of useless traces of residue of narcotic substances does not constitute sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for possesssion of narcotics. 36 We need not decide whether the Fein decision states the rule applicable in federal courts, since Wagner was not charged with possession of narcotics. Under count one of the indictment he was charged with conspiring to smuggle narcotics into the United States for distribution and retail sale. Customs Special Agent Melvin Paulson testified that rubber balloons are used for the storage of heroin and cocaine for sales purposes. The testimony that a Government chemist found heroin residue on balloons found in Wagner's apartment was obviously relevant and had substantial probative value in proving the conspiracy charge. The trial court did not err in admitting this testimony. 2 37 The judgments of conviction and sentences in these Group IV appeals are affirmed.