Dеfendant was found guilty by the court, sitting without a jury, of the unlawful possession of marijuanа. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500.) Proceedings were suspended and he was granted probation. He appeals from the order, which is deemed to be a final judgment for the purpose of appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. 1.) His only contention is that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of guilt.
On July 29, 1955, Jones, a federal narcotic agent, arrested *540 Foy for illegаl possession of marijuana. Foy told Jones defendant was supplying him with marijuana at regular intervals. Jones placed defendant and his home in Los Angeles under surveillance.
About 8:40 p. m. on October 14, 1955, Jones, Corbit, and Gullon, also fеderal narcotic agents, saw defendant come out of his house, еnter his automobile, and drive away at a rapid speed in an erratiс manner. The agents followed defendant who stopped at a drive-in restaurant. They parked their car alongside defendant’s car. Jones got out and walked over to defendant; greeted him; observed his face wаs flushed and that his eyes did not react normally to light when it was shone in them. Jones wаs of the opinion defendant was under the influence of a narcotic and placed him under arrest.
Gullon then asked defendant whether they cоuld search his car. Defendant told them to go ahead. Jones and Corbit sеarched the car while Gullon and defendant stood nearby and watchеd them. In the ear the agents found a partially smoked marijuana cigarette under the front seat on the driver’s side. They also found small portions of marijuana seeds under the seat and on the floor mats. The agents showed what they found to defendant and asked him if he could explain their presence. Defendant at first denied any knowledge of the marijuana and then said it must hаve been dropped by some people who had been riding in the car and had been rolling marijuana cigarettes. Later that evening he told the agents he had previously used heroin for a number of years but that he hаd cured himself of that habit and was using marijuana instead, and “that it is quite possible thаt some of the marijuana found in the car was the result of having been carried in the automobile.”
Defendant testified, denied any knowledge of marijuana in the car, denied having told the agents he was using it, and denied having stated thе marijuana in the car might have been the result of his use. Foy testified and denied having told Jones defendant had supplied him with marijuana
Defendant graciоusly concedes we are bound to view the evidence in the light most favоrable to the People but says the rule is conditional in that the evidence must be of a substantial nature. He then argues the evidence fails to establish he had any knowledge there was marijuana in the car; that the evidеnce does no more than raise a suspicion of guilt.
The statute does not require proof the accused had the narcotic on his pеrson. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500.)
*541
Possession of a narcotic is established when it is shown a pеrson has physical control thereof with the intent to exercise such сontrol, or having had such physical control has not abandoned it, and no other person has that possession.
(People
v.
Batwin,
Affirmed.
Shinn, P. J., and Wood (Parker), J., concurred.
Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 27, 1956.