Legal Opinion

Armstrong v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 24, 1990No. D010830PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BENKE, Acting P. J.

Defendant Donald William Armstrong, petitioner herein, was arrested on a charge of possessing a controlled substance for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11378. The arrest grew out of a controlled purchase during which he paid for the narcotics but never received actual physical possession of the contraband. The question petitioner raises is whether under such circumstances he can be said to have constructively possessed the narcotic. He seeks a writ, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge. The People respond that…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. People v. FrancisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  2. United States v. Victor Montano DislaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
  3. Henry Rodella v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
  4. People v. RogersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  5. United States v. Danilo Bautista Batimana and Jose Edgardo NogueraCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1980

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. People v. MoralesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  2. People v. ScottCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
  3. United States v. Palacios-QuinonezCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2005
  4. PSC Geothermal Services Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  5. In Re RothwellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API