Court Opinion

ID: 9737746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:33:41.015547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:00.132343
License: Public Domain

SHINN, P. J.
I concur in the judgment. It is my opinion that it is for the trier of fact to determine the intentions and *423purposes of a defendant from his conduct and other circumstantial evidence, and that in the trial of that issue there is no place for the opinions of professed mind readers. It will therefore be error in a prosecution for possession of narcotics for sale to elicit from a police officer, or other witness, the opinion that the defendant had an intention to sell the narcotics in his possession. Such an opinion would be as incompetent as an opinion that the defendant knew that the substance he had was a narcotic.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 19, 1966.