People v. Solorio

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Perry

    271 Cal.App.2d 84 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 27 times
    In People v. Perry (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 84, defendant challenged a jury instruction defining the crime of possession of a controlled substance by using the generic term "narcotic" instead of referring to heroin.

    ( People v. Redrick (1961) 55 Cal.2d 282, 285 [ 10 Cal.Rptr. 823, 359 P.2d 255]. See also People v. Showers (1968) 68 Cal.2d 639, 642-643 [ 68 Cal.Rptr. 459, 440 P.2d 939]; People v. Winston (1956) 46 Cal.2d 151, 158-161 [ 293 P.2d 40]; People v. Gorg (1955) 45 Cal.2d 776, 780 [ 291 P.2d 469]; People v. Gory (1946) 28 Cal.2d 450, 454-456 [ 170 P.2d 433]; People v. Solorio (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 914]; People v. Juvera (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 569, 573 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 653]; People v. Estrada (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 435, 437 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 308]; People v. Stanford (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 388, 390 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 425]; People v. Tabizon (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 271, 273 [ 332 P.2d 697]; People v. Jackson (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 772, 778 [ 331 P.2d 218]; and People v. Rodriguez (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d 598, 601 [ 312 P.2d 272].) Moreover, it is recognized "that proof of opportunity of access to a place where narcotics are found, without more, will not support a finding of unlawful possession."

  2. People v. Thompson

    13 Cal.App.3d 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 5 times
    In People v. Thompson (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 47 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 341], the court stated, "The fact that the attorney was privately retained by defendant then by Washington and Williams does not compel us to find that defendant intelligently waived his right to effective counsel.

    Each of these elements may be proved by circumstances which will inferentially show "constructive possession" when added together. ( People v. Solorio, 232 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 914]; People v. Juvera, 214 Cal.App.2d 569, 573 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 653]; People v. Estrada, 185 Cal.App.2d 435, 437 [ 8 Cal.Rptr. 308]; People v. Stanford, 176 Cal.App.2d 388, 390 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 425].) See Note.

  3. People v. Patton

    264 Cal.App.2d 637 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 1 times

    [4] The actions of appellant in this case are indicative of his knowledge of the character of the substance he possessed and the unlawfulness of its possession. (See People v. Solorio, 232 Cal.App.2d 527 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 914]; People v. Torres, 98 Cal.App.2d 189 [ 219 P.2d 480]; People v. Dewson, 150 Cal.App.2d 119 [ 310 P.2d 162].) The judge in this case passed upon the credibility of the witnesses, and resolved whatever conflicts there were.