# People v. McDaniel

> California Court of Appeal · July 13, 1943 · 59 Cal. App. 2d 672

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546551

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Respondent, v. NOAH EDGAR McDANIEL, Appellant
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** July 13, 1943
- **Citations:** 59 Cal. App. 2d 672; 140 P.2d 88; 1943 Cal. App. LEXIS 368
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Doran
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546551

## Opinion text

*679 THE COURT.
The petition for a rehearing is denied.
It is urged in the petition for a rehearing that the evidence established the corpus delicti because, it is argued, it tends to show that the narcotic was in the possession of someone, which is all that the law requires.
The only evidence revealed by the record that may be regarded as tending to establish the corpus delicti is the following testimony of the witness Harman:
“Q. Will you describe those premises briefly? A. It is a residence. . . . Q. Did you make a search of or in and about the premises? A. Yes, we did. Q. What if anything did you find there, Mrs. Harman ? A. We found a medical book and a doctor’s kit and some instruments and I believe an appointment book.” The witness testified in substance that the narcotics were in the doctor’s kit.
The rule is accepted generally that prima facie evidence is sufficient to establish the corpus delicti, but evidence as casual, indefinite, uncertain and wholly lacking in particularities as the finding of something of, in or about the premises, falls far short of proving possession, even prima facie.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 12, 1943.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9546551. Public record. Not legal advice.