People v. Mijares
6 Cal. 3d 415, 491 P.2d 1115, 99 Cal. Rptr. 139 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The momentary handling of a narcotic for the sole purpose of disposal does not constitute criminal possession under the law. Unlawful possession requires dominion and control for a purpose other than immediate abandonment.
Facts:
- A witness, Mrs. Francine Beard, observed Andrew Mares Mijares lean into a parked car and slap a passenger, Johnny Rodriguez.
- Mrs. Beard then saw Mijares remove a red handkerchief-like object from the car and throw it into a nearby field.
- Mijares drove the unconscious and non-breathing Rodriguez to a fire station, announcing that Rodriguez needed oxygen.
- Firefighters resuscitated Rodriguez, who was then transported to a hospital.
- Police, alerted by Mrs. Beard, recovered the object from the field, which was a narcotics outfit containing heroin.
- Mijares claimed he discovered Rodriguez was overdosing, found the narcotics outfit in Rodriguez's pockets, threw it away, and then immediately sought medical help.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Andrew Mares Mijares with possession of heroin in a California trial court.
- A jury found Mijares guilty.
- Following his conviction, Mijares was sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison due to prior convictions.
- Mijares (appellant) appealed the conviction to the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Mijares then appealed to the Supreme Court of California for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the momentary handling of a narcotic for the sole purpose of disposing of it constitute illegal 'possession' within the meaning of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Mosk, J.
No. The possession prohibited by the statute does not include merely handling a narcotic for brief moments for the sole purpose of abandoning or disposing of it. To constitute possession, a defendant's control must not be a 'passing control, fleeting and shadowy in its nature.' The purpose of possession statutes is to target narcotic activities like use, sale, or storage for future use, not the act of discarding contraband. Holding that the brief moment of abandonment creates criminal possession would be incongruous with the principle that abandonment terminates possession and could lead to manifest injustice by criminalizing the actions of innocent individuals. Therefore, the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that if Mijares's handling of the heroin was solely for disposal, it was insufficient to support a conviction.
Dissenting - McComb, J.
Yes. The dissenter would affirm the judgment of conviction for the reasons expressed by the intermediate Court of Appeal in its (now superseded) opinion, providing no independent reasoning.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant defense to drug possession charges by clarifying that the element of 'possession' requires more than mere transitory handling. It shifts the legal focus from the physical act of touching contraband to the defendant's intent and the duration of the contact. By creating the 'momentary possession for disposal' defense, the court prevents the strict application of possession laws to situations where a person's intent is to terminate, rather than exercise, control over the substance. This precedent requires juries to consider the defendant's purpose, potentially complicating prosecutions in cases where defendants claim they were merely discarding found drugs.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Mijares