Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Benny Earl REED, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial. After conviction, criminal proceedings were adjourned and the defendant was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center. No judgment was pronounced.
The grounds for appeal are the same as those urged in People v. Wilson, Cal.App., 48 Cal.Rptr. 638, decided this date.
This appeal is one of a series of cases in which extensive discovery proceedings (detailed in People v. Wilson, supra) were undertaken by various defendants to learn the whereabouts of one Samuel Kinsey, a participant-informant, and material witness. An application by defendant to augment the record to include the reporter's transcript of the discovery proceedings involving other defendants, was granted by this court. The appeal is predicated mainly on the grounds that the defendant was deprived of his constitutional rights to a speedy trial, a fair trial and denial of due process of law.
Trial before a jury resulted in a verdict of guilty of violation of section 11501, Health and Safety Code. The evidence showed that the undercover officer met Kinsey on the street. Kinsey left and in approximately five minutes reappeared with the defendant. Kinsey asked the defendant if he had the stuff. Then followed the transaction whereby $10 was passed from the officer to Kinsey to the defendant. In turn a balloon containing heroin was passed from defendant to Kinsey to Williams.
For the reasons set forth in People v. Wilson, supra, the order denying a motion for a new trial is affirmed. The appeal from the purported judgment is dismissed.
FOOTNOTES
DRUNCKER, Justice pro tem.* FN* Retired judge of the superior court sitting pro tempore under assignment by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.
SHINN, P. J., and KAUS, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Cr. 10899.
Decided: January 13, 1966
Court: District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)