Gilberto Alvarado

Gilberto Alvarado


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Gilberto Alvarado was born in Nicaragua in 1940. He joined the Frente de Liberacion Nacional (FLN) a guerrilla group inspired by the activities of Fidel Castro in Cuba. However, he was also a CIA informant.

In 1963 the FLN sent Alvarado to Mexico in order to obtain entry to Cuba where it was hoped he would be trained in sabotage.

On 25th November, 1963, Alvarado contacted the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and said he had some important information about Lee Harvey Oswald, who had recently been arrested and accused of assassinating John F. Kennedy.

Thomas C. Mann passed the information onto Winston Scott and the following morning, Scott's deputy, Alan White and another CIA officer interviewed Alvarado He claimed that during a visit to the Cuban Embassy he overheard a man he now recognised as Oswald, talking to a red-haired Negro man. According to Alvarado, Oswald said something about being man enough to kill someone. He also claimed that he saw money changing hands. He reported the information at the time to the U.S. Embassy but they replied: "Quit wasting our time. We are working here, not playing."

Winston Scott told David Atlee Phillips about what Alvarado had said to Alan White. On 26th November, Phillips had a meeting with Alvarado in a safe-house. Alvarado told Phillips that the red-haired black man had given Oswald $1,500 for expenses and $5,500 as an advance. Although he was not sure of the date, he thought it was about 18th September.

Mann and David Atlee Phillips believed Alvarado but Winston Scott was not so sure. He argued that there was an "outside possibility" that it might be a set-up by the right-wing government in Nicaragua who wanted the United States to invade Cuba. However, as Jefferson Morley pointed out in Our Man in Mexico: "The unstated message emanating from the White House was by now clear to Win - though not to Mann. Speculation about Oswald's motives was to be cut off, not pursued."

On 27th November, Luis Echeverria told Winston Scott that they had rearrested Silvia Duran because she was trying to leave Mexico for Cuba. Mann sent a message to Scott that stated: "Duran should be told that as the only living non-Cuban who knew the full story, she was in exactly the same position as Oswald prior to the assassination. Her only chance of survival is to come clean with the whole story and cooperate fully. I think she'll crack when confronted with the details."

On 28th November, Winston Scott contacted Luis Echeverria and told him that Washington wanted the Mexicans to interrogate Gilberto Alvarado On 29th November, Scott received a message from John M. Whitten saying: "Please continue to keep us filled in on status of interrogations of Slvia Duran, Alvarado and others implicated as fast as you can get info."

J. Edgar Hoover sent FBI agent, Larry Keenan, to Mexico City in order to have a meeting with Thomas C. Mann, Winston Scott, and David Atlee Phillips. Mann started the meeting by expressing the belief that Fidel Castro and the DGI were behind the assassination of John F. Kennedy and that it was just a matter of time before the United States invaded Cuba. However, Keenan replied that Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert Kennedy, all believed that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

Mann later told Dick Russell: "It surprised me so much. That was the only time it ever happened to me - We don't want to hear any more about the case - and tell the Mexican government not to do any more about it, not to do more investigating, we just want to hush it up.... I don't think the U.S. was very forthcoming about Oswald... it was the strangest experience of my life."

In reality, J. Edgar Hoover had not ruled out the possibility of a communist plot to kill John F. Kennedy. At 1.40 on 29th November, Hoover told Lyndon B. Johnson on the telephone: "This angle in Mexico is giving us a great deal of trouble because the story there is of this man Oswald getting $6,500 from the Cuban embassy and then coming back to this country with it. We're not able to prove that fact, but the information was that he was there on the 18th of September in Mexico City and we are able to prove conclusively he was in New Orleans that day. Now then they've changed the dates. The story came in changing the dates to the 28th of September and he was in Mexico City on the 28th. Now the Mexican police have again arrested this woman Duran, who is a member of the Cuban embassy... and we're going to confront her with the original informant, who saw the money pass, so he says, and we're also going to put the lie detector test on him."

That evening Fernando Gutiérrez Barrios told Winston Scott that Gilberto Alvarado had recanted and signed a statement admitting that his story of seeing Lee Harvey Oswald in the Cuban Embassy was completely false. He said his motive was to try to get the United States to take action against Fidel Castro.

A few days later Gilberto Alvarado reverted to his original story. He told his Nicaraguan handler that the only reason that he recanted was that his interrogators threatened "to hang him by his testicles". However, soon afterwards, he recanted again. David Atlee Phillips later claimed that Alvarado was "dispatched to Mexico City by the Somoza brothers... in what they considered a covert action to influence the American government to move against Cuba". Jefferson Morley argues that Phillips is being disingenuous: "Phillips knew all along about Alvarado's service as a CIA informant. Even the FBI knew all along he was under CIA control."

Silvia Duran was questioned about her relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald. Despite being roughed up she denied having a sexual relationship with Oswald. She also claimed that Alvarado was lying about money being passed to Oswald. Luis Echeverria believed her and she was released.


Early Life

Pedro's exact year of birth is unknown: it was probably sometime between 1485 and 1495. Like many conquistadores, he was from the province of Extremadura—the city of Badajoz, in his case. Like many younger sons of minor nobility, Pedro and his brothers could not expect much in the way of an inheritance. They were expected to become priests or soldiers, as working the land was considered beneath them. In about 1510 he went to the New World with several brothers and an uncle. They soon found work as soldiers in the various expeditions of conquest that originated on Hispaniola, including the brutal conquest of Cuba.


About Old Monterey

Downtown Monterey is a mecca of cultural and historical diversity which features a variety of dining options, retail stores, and entertainment. Its landscape combines the images of Monterey’s past and present by allowing its patrons to walk the streets once walked by great historical figures while experiencing the modern charm of the seaside town. While visiting downtown, visitors can enjoy a delicious meal, shop till they drop, or take a trip through time and experience the rich history downtown Monterey has to offer.

The main street of downtown Monterey is Alvarado Street, which is recognized as a “Main Street Community” by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The street was named for Juan Bautista Alvarado who was the former governor of Alta California. Alvarado Street is adjacent to several historical buildings including Colton Hall, the Larkin House, the Cooper Molera Adobe, the Stevenson House, the Custom House, and California’s First Theater. These landmarks and others can be toured daily, most of which for free, or be seen on the Path of History which is marked by round, yellow tiles which are embedded in the sidewalk throughout the downtown area.

Old Monterey is the heart of Historic Downtown. Serving the needs of residents and visitors alike, we offer a well-marked Path of History as well as more than 460 shops, restaurants, hotels, and businesses offering personal and professional services.

Downtown is also home of the Old Monterey Marketplace, held on Alvarado Street (our city's historic main street) every Tuesday, rain or shine. Hours are 4pm-7pm, October through April, and 4pm-8pm, May through September. As a Certified Farmer's Market, it offers a deliciously tempting Baker's Alley, fresh organic produce, and dozens of unique arts and crafts vendors.

The Old Monterey Business Association (OMBA) is a nonprofit organization committed to enhancing and promoting the economic vitality and community spirit of Old Monterey. A certified member of the National Main Street program since 1992, the OMBA produces a local dining guide, monthly Commercial Space Available listings and a Path of History brochure that guides both locals and visitors through a celebration of Monterey's exciting past.


Settlement History

Although no prehistoric sites have been identified here, the Center for Anthropological Studies has found possible prehistoric features in Alvarado Gardens. Gardeners occasionally unearth potshards and worked stones probably left by Tiwas who inhabited the Albuquerque area. Spanish colonists probably farmed the region during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but a shifting river course and periodic flooding precluded the construction of homes until flood control efforts of the 1930s.

Subdivision Platting and Recent Developments

The Yonemoto family operated a truck farm and eventually built houses for themselves and for workers at the end of Candelaria Road after flood control measures had been taken. The Louis Palmer slaughterhouse, built near the end of Campbell Road, was the destination for cattle driven down the wide dirt roads leading toward the river. The small ditch adjacent to the clear ditch or &ldquoacequia madre&rdquo was used for the disposal of offal. A government experimental sheep station operated on the south side of Candelaria near Rio Grande Boulevard. These agricultural businesses closed after the number of housing units increased. The area became part of Albuquerque in October 1952. Zoning for the Alvarado Gardens neighborhood was all A𔂫 in 1950. In May, 1954, an R𔂬 zoning change was made for the area between the Duranes ditch and Glenwood Road . In 1978, the zoning for the site of the Rio Grande Nature Center was changed to SU𔂫. The last large agricultural land holding within the City of Albuquerque is Candelaria Farms within the Nature Center, where alfalfa and sorghum are raised to benefit the center&rsquos bird population as well as the leasing farmers.

Alvarado Gardens was platted in 1931. Homes have been built at a slow, steady pace since then. Modest adobe rectangles, vintage mobile home parks , large solar‑heated villas, modern town houses, and sturdy frame or adobe homes share the streets in irregular order on lots that conform to the predominant land pattern created by the irrigation ditches. Landscaping ranges from casual to precise, from barren to luxuriant. The Alvarado Gardens community has welcomed and supported the fire station at Oro Vista and Rio Grande, the All Faiths Receiving Home on Trellis, and the Rio Grande Nature Center on Candelaria. These institutions serve the greater Albuquerque community, as do the storm sewer outfall pump station and the bicycle trail. Hundreds of joggers and bicyclists emerge each weekend from the end of the trail at Candelaria and fan out through Alvarado Gardens to head home or to complete a marathon loop through the neighborhood.


Alvarado

Alvarado Boy (PDF) — A historical fiction about growing up in Alvarado in the 1880’s. Researched and written by Tim Swenson.

Alvarado’s Chinatown / Little Tijuana (PDF) — An in-depth look at the final days of the seedy section of Alvarado as it was shutdown by the authorities. Written by Anthony Gualco.

Alvarado Elementary – History Presentation (PDF) — Slide presentation of the history of the Alvarado School District and Alvarado Elementary School.

Alvarado Elementary – History Presentation (PowerPoint)— Slide presentation of the history of the Alvarado School District and Alvarado Elementary School.

Alvarado Elementary – History Report (PDF) — History of the Avarado School District and Alvarado Elementary School, from 1850 to about 1965.

Alvarado Elementary – Study Guide (PDF) — Study guide for the history of the Alvarado Elementary School.

Alvarado in 1850 (PDF) — A detailed history of Alvarado (Union City & New Haven) from it’s beginning in 1850 until 1870.

Alvarado Sugar Beet Factory, and the Dyer family that founded it (PDF) – For just over a hundred years a factory existed in Alvarado that took simple sugar beets and turned them into refined white sugar.

Analysis of Census Records of Alvarado, California (PDF) — Analysis of Alvarado’s Census Records between the years of 1860 to 1930. Alvarado was one of the five large unincorporated towns in Washington Township before becoming part of Union City.

Charles S. Eigenbrodt Civil War Hero (PDF) — Charles Eigenbrodt was a Civil War hero who lived in Alvarado, Washington Township, Alameda County, California. Researched and written by Tim Swenson

Homes of Vallejo Street (PDF) — From 1860 on, the west side of Vallejo Street, in Union City, was the place to own a home. This paper documents the homes and their well-known owners.

Scandinavian Oystermen of Alvarado (PDF) — The commercial oyster industry in the San Francisco Bay area started in 1869 with the importation of eastern oysters and the establishment of oyster beds on the bay. Written by Tim Swenson

Two Courthouses (PDF) — In-depth analysis of two pictures of the Alameda County Courthouse in Alvarado.

Alvarado Walking Tour (Timothy Swenson) (PDF) — A self-guided tour of Union City’s historic Alvarado district.


STATE v. ALVARADO

STATE of Arizona, Appellant, v. Ivan ALVARADO, Appellee.

No. 1 CA-CR 07-0738.

Decided: December 26, 2008

¶ 1 The offense of promoting prison contraband occurs when a person “knowingly takes contraband into a correctional facility or the grounds of such facility.” Ariz.Rev.Stat. (A.R.S.) § 13-2505 (2001). The trial court granted defendant's post-verdict motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of promoting prison contraband, reasoning that defendant did not “voluntarily” take marijuana into the jail following his arrest because it was concealed on his person when he was arrested. The State appeals the trial court's ruling. We conclude that the evidence supports the jury's determination that defendant committed the offense of promoting prison contraband even though he did not “voluntarily” choose to enter the correctional facility. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of acquittal entered by the trial court and direct the court to reinstate the jury's guilty verdict.

¶ 2 We view the evidence at trial in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict. State v. Moody, 208 Ariz. 424, 435 n. 1, 94 P.3d 1119, 1130 n. 1 (2004). The evidence showed that a police officer, responding to a call reporting a possible family fight, felt what he believed to be a pipe in defendant's coat pocket when he was patting him down for weapons. Defendant told the officer that it was his marijuana pipe and gave the officer permission to remove it from his pocket. As the officer was securing defendant in handcuffs, defendant volunteered that he had marijuana in another coat pocket. The officer retrieved a baggie of marijuana weighing 71 milligrams from the pocket defendant had indicated, and completed his pat down before placing defendant in the police car for transportation to the Yavapai County Jail.

¶ 3 Before entering the jail, the police officer asked defendant if he had any drugs or weapons on him, and warned him that he faced additional charges if he took drugs or weapons into the jail. Defendant responded, “No.” The police officer repeated the question and warning before defendant entered the jail, and defendant again responded, “No.” After defendant was brought into the facility to commence the booking process, a detention officer also asked defendant if he had any weapons or drugs on him, 1 and defendant “sort of murmured no.” The detention officer, however, searched defendant's person and removed a container from one of defendant's pockets, which, when opened, held 790 milligrams of marijuana. 2 Defendant volunteered, “Oh, man, I worked hard for that chronic,” a slang term for marijuana.

¶ 4 The judge denied defendant's request for a preliminary instruction that the crime of promoting prison contraband requires proof that “the defendant knowingly and voluntarily took contraband into a correctional facility,” but agreed to add a definition of “voluntary act” to the preliminary instructions. At the close of the State's case, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on the charge on the ground that the State had not met its burden “to prove [he] voluntarily brought contraband into the jail.” The judge denied the motion, finding the evidence sufficient to go to the jury “based on the evidence that it was on his person at the time he was booked into jail.” The judge allowed defendant to argue to the jury that no evidence was offered to show defendant engaged in a voluntary act, and instructed the jury that the State must prove that defendant had committed a voluntary act, again defining the term as “a bodily movement performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination.” The jury convicted defendant of promoting prison contraband, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia.

¶ 5 Defendant renewed his motion for judgment of acquittal after trial, relying in his reply on State v. Tippetts, 180 Or.App. 350, 43 P.3d 455, 459-60 (2002), in which the Oregon appellate court reversed a conviction for smuggling contraband into the jail on the ground that the evidence failed to show that the defendant committed the voluntary act necessary for culpability. The judge granted defendant's renewed motion for judgment of acquittal, reasoning that “the facts and the law recited and relied upon in Tippetts are virtually identical to the facts and law in this case. The rationale and holding clearly and articulately stated in Tippetts are determinative of this case.”

¶ 6 The State timely appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4032(7) (Supp.2008).

¶ 7 The State argues that the judge erred in granting the renewed motion for judgment of acquittal because she “misconstrued the definition of a ‘voluntary’ act as it relates to criminal liability in Arizona.” We review a trial court's grant of a post-conviction judgment of acquittal for an abuse of discretion. See State ex rel. Hyder v. Superior Court, 128 Ariz. 216, 224, 624 P.2d 1264, 1273 (1981). “To find that the evidence was sufficient before the jury got the case, but not after, can be justified only on the basis of a mistake of law on the part of the court and not fact on the part of the jury.” Id. at 224, 624 P.2d at 1272. In conducting our review, we view the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the jury's verdict. State v. Carrasco, 201 Ariz. 220, 221, ¶ 1, 33 P.3d 791, 792 (App.2001). “Reversible error based on insufficiency of the evidence occurs only where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conviction.” State v. Soto-Fong, 187 Ariz. 186, 200, 928 P.2d 610, 624 (1996). We review purely legal issues de novo. Mejak v. Granville, 212 Ariz. 555, 556, ¶ 7, 136 P.3d 874, 875 (2006).

¶ 8 The State charged defendant, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-2505(A)(1), with promoting prison contraband by knowingly taking marijuana into the Yavapai County Jail. At issue in this appeal is A.R.S. § 13-201 (2001), which provides that “[t]he minimum requirement for criminal liability is the performance by a person of conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform a duty imposed by law which the person is physically capable of performing.” The legislature has defined “voluntary act” as “a bodily movement performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination.” A.R.S. § 13-105(37) (2001). 3

¶ 9 In Tippetts, the Oregon appellate court considered the appeal of a defendant who was convicted of introducing marijuana into the jail under similar circumstances. Id. at 456. The marijuana was in defendant's pants pocket when he was arrested. Id. A jail officer asked the defendant if he had drugs or weapons on him before searching him and discovering the marijuana, to which the defendant apparently made no response. Id. On appeal, the defendant argued that proof of a voluntary act was a necessary prerequisite to his conviction, and that such evidence was missing because “once he was arrested, he could not avoid taking the marijuana with him into the jail.” Id.

¶ 10 The Tippetts court agreed with the defendant that, under the circumstances, he did not “initiate the introduction of the contraband into the jail or cause it to be introduced into the jail,” as necessary under its interpretation of the requirement of a “voluntary act.” 43 P.3d at 457. “Rather, the contraband was introduced into the jail only because the police took defendant (and the contraband) there against his will.” Id. This is so, the court explained, because the concept of fault implies the ability to choose, and, on these facts, “he cannot be said to have chosen to introduce the marijuana into the jail.” Id. at 458. The court further explained that the requirement of a voluntary act dictated “that the mere fact that defendant voluntarily possessed the drugs before he was arrested is insufficient to hold him criminally liable for the later act of introducing the drugs into the jail.” Id. at 459. The court also reasoned that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination prevented “the state from forcing defendant to choose between admitting to possession of a controlled substance and being charged with introducing that substance into a correctional facility.” Id. at 457 n. 2.

¶ 11 In order for the “involuntary act” of entering the jail with drugs to supply the basis for a conviction of conveying drugs into the jail, the court held, “the involuntary act must, at a minimum, be a reasonably foreseeable or likely consequence of the voluntary act on which the state seeks to base criminal liability.” Id. at 459-60. On the facts before it, the court held, “no reasonable juror could have found that the introduction of contraband into the jail was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of possessing it.” Id. at 460. Rather, the court reasoned, under those facts, the police officer's “act of arresting defendant and transporting him to the jail was an intervening cause that resulted in the marijuana's being introduced into the jail.” Id. Accordingly, the Tippetts court reversed the defendant's conviction for introducing contraband into the jail. Id.

¶ 12 Courts outside this jurisdiction have split on whether entering a jail involuntarily with drugs in one's possession can form the basis of a conviction for introducing contraband into the jail. Three jurisdictions have followed the reasoning outlined in Tippetts to preclude a defendant from being convicted of smuggling drugs into prison if the drugs were simply on his person when he was arrested. See State v. Cole, 142 N.M. 325, 164 P.3d 1024, 1026-27 (App.2007) (agreeing with the reasoning of Tippetts, holding that, “to be found guilty of bringing contraband into a jail ․ a person must enter the jail voluntarily”) State v. Sowry, 155 Ohio App.3d 742, 803 N.E.2d 867, 870, ¶¶ 18-19 (2004) (holding that the defendant could not be held liable for conveying drugs into the detention facility because he had no control over his person once he was arrested) State v. Eaton, 143 Wash.App. 155, 177 P.3d 157, 160-65 (2008) (agreeing with Tippetts, reasoning that the legislature “did not intend the unlikely, absurd, or strained consequence of punishing a defendant for his involuntary act”), review granted by Eaton, 164 Wash.2d 1013, 195 P.3d 88 (2008).

¶ 13 Courts in five jurisdictions, however, have diverged from or rejected the analysis of Tippetts, holding that no more than entry into jail knowing that one is carrying contraband is required by the plain terms of the governing statutes. See People v. Ross, 162 Cal.App.4th 1184, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 477, 479-82 (2008) (rejecting Tippetts on policy grounds in interpreting statute prohibiting bringing weapons into jail, and holding that Fifth Amendment did not protect defendant from the consequences of her lie to the booking officer that she had no weapons on her) 4 State v. Carr, 2008 WL 4368240 at 5 (Tenn.Crim.App.2008) (rejecting the reasoning of Tippetts as contrary to “sound policy” and the intent of the legislature “in its enactment of this offense”) State v. Winsor, 110 S.W.3d 882, 886-88 (Mo.App.2003) (affirming defendant's conviction for possessing a controlled substance in jail in face of his argument that he was in jail involuntarily, reasoning that voluntary presence in jail was not an element of the offense, and to hold otherwise would lead to absurd result) Brown v. State, 89 S.W.3d 630, 633 (Tex.Crim.App.2002) (rejecting defendant's claim that he did not voluntarily bring marijuana into the jail, reasoning that under Texas law, the term “voluntarily” means simply the “absence of an accidental act, omission or possession”) State v. Canas, 597 N.W.2d 488, 496-97 (Iowa 1999) (rejecting defendant's claim that he did not voluntarily bring marijuana into the jail, reasoning that defendant had the option of disclosing the drugs before he entered the jail, and this choice did not impermissibly burden his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent), abrogated in part on other grounds by State v. Turner, 630 N.W.2d 601, 606 n. 2 (Iowa 2001).

¶ 14 We decline to follow Tippetts and its progeny because our supreme court's interpretation of the requirement of a “voluntary act” and the plain terms and purpose of the statute prohibiting the promotion of contraband dictate a different analysis and conclusion. When construing statutes, we make every effort to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Mejak, 212 Ariz. at 557, ¶ 8, 136 P.3d at 876. We consider the statutory language the best indicator of that intent, and we go no further to ascertain the intent if the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. Id. We employ a common sense approach, reading the statute in terms of its stated purpose and the system of related statutes of which it forms a part, taking care, however, to avoid absurd results. See State v. Rodriguez, 205 Ariz. 392, 396, ¶ 11, 71 P.3d 919, 923 (App.2003) State v. Affordable Bail Bonds, 198 Ariz. 34, 37, ¶ 13, 6 P.3d 339, 342 (App.2000).

¶ 15 In State v. Lara, 183 Ariz. 233, 234-35, 902 P.2d 1337, 1338-39 (1995), our supreme court explained that the requirement that an act be “voluntary” is simply a codification of the common law requirement of actus reus, a requirement grounded in the principle that a person cannot be prosecuted for his thoughts alone, and that the voluntary act requirement does not modify the mens rea required for the offense. The court therefore concluded that expert testimony that the defendant suffered from a brain disorder that caused him to fly into a rage “as if by reflex” was insufficient to support a voluntary act instruction. Id. The court stated that the statutory requirement that the conduct include “a bodily movement performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination” simply means that the defendant engage in “a determined conscious bodily movement, in contrast to a knee-jerk reflex driven by the autonomic nervous system.” See id. 5

¶ 16 Defendant, however, would have us interpret the governing statutes to require that the State not only prove that defendant knew that he was taking marijuana into the jail but that he was entering the jail “voluntarily.” In making this request, defendant confuses the concept of a “voluntary act” with the requisite culpable mental state for the offense. Again, as explained in Lara, 183 Ariz. at 235, 902 P.2d at 1339: “ ‘[V]oluntary act’ means actus reus. On the other hand, ‘voluntary’ has also been used to describe behavior that might justify inferring a particular culpable mental state.” Id. at 235, 902 P.2d at 1339. The evidence in this case is more than sufficient to demonstrate that defendant had the necessary mens rea of “knowingly” taking the marijuana into the jail, as evidenced by his statement, “Oh man, I worked hard for that chronic.” If we were to adopt defendant's interpretation, the statute would only apply to non-inmates, such as employees or visitors, who “voluntarily” enter the jail while carrying drugs. The statute is not so limited and we decline, under the guise of interpretation, to modify the statute in a manner contrary to its plain wording. See Winsor, 110 S.W.3d at 887 (“Whether Appellant's presence on the county jail's premises was voluntary or against his will is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether he committed the offense.”). 6

¶ 17 We also find inapposite cases from other jurisdictions that have held that a defendant did not commit the requisite voluntary act under circumstances in which another actor actually controlled defendant's actions that comprised the prohibited actus reus. For example, in Martin v. State, 31 Ala.App. 334, 17 So.2d 427 (1944), the defendant was drinking in his home when police officers arrested him and took him onto the highway, where he became loud and profane. The court reversed his conviction for public drunkenness because the plain terms of the statute, which prohibited a person from appearing in a public place and “manifest[ing] a drunken condition by boisterous or indecent conduct, or loud and profane discourse,” presuppose a voluntary appearance in a public place. Id. In Arizona, however, as we have explained, the offense of promoting prison contraband pursuant to § 13-2505(A)(1) does not require that a person voluntarily enter the jail before he may be charged with violating the statute.

¶ 18 Finally, the circumstance here that both the arresting officer and the detention officer informed defendant of the consequences of bringing contraband into the jail and gave him an opportunity to surrender any contraband beforehand highlight that defendant was performing a bodily movement “consciously and as a result of effort and determination” when he carried the contraband into the jail. That defendant chose not to disclose that he possessed an additional amount of marijuana on his person does not somehow absolve him of responsibility for his actions on the theory that providing him an opportunity to choose between admitting to possession of the marijuana and being charged with introducing that substance into the jail violates the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Canas, 597 N.W.2d at 496 (“Sometimes the choices faced by a defendant may have the effect of discouraging the exercise of constitutional rights but that does not mean such choices are prohibited.”). In this regard, we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee:

Appellant's possession of a controlled substance was voluntary in that, after being advised of the consequences of bringing drugs into the jail, the Appellant consciously chose to ignore the officers' warnings, choosing instead to enter the jail in possession of cocaine. Under these circumstances, the Appellant was the author of his own fate.

Carr, 2008 WL 4368240 at 5.

¶ 19 Because the evidence in this case sufficiently demonstrated that defendant consciously, with effort and determination, engaged in the prohibited conduct of carrying marijuana into the Yavapai County Jail, the trial court erred in entering a judgment of acquittal. We therefore reverse the judgment of acquittal, direct the court to reinstate the jury's verdict, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

1. According to the detention officer, the precise question he asked defendant is one he usually asks: “Do you have any hand grenades, rocket launchers, missiles, drugs, guns, knives, or anything else I need to know about?”

2. The officer described the container as a “Carmex container-a small white, round container.” Carmex is a lip balm that is commonly sold in white opaque jars with a screw-on lid. See http://​www.​mycarmex.​com/​our-​products/​default.​aspx (last visited December 19, 2008).

3. The definitions have since been renumbered, but have not changed in substance. See A.R.S. § 13-105(41) (Supp.2008).

4. The California Supreme Court has granted review of two cases in which California's intermediate appellate court has issued inconsistent rulings regarding a related statute criminalizing the act of bringing drugs into jail. In People v. Gastello, 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 293, 294 (App.2007), review granted June 13, 2007, the court held that the evidence failed to support a conviction because the defendant “entered the jail only due to being arrested and brought there in custody” and therefore he did not engage in the necessary voluntary act. In People v. Low, 2007 WL 756952 at 2 (Cal.App.2007) (unpublished disposition), review granted June 13, 2007, however, the court upheld the defendant's conviction, explaining the statute did not require that the defendant “ ‘voluntarily’ enter a detention facility carrying illegal drugs.”

5. Defendant's argument that the Lara court did not address the requirement that the act be the “result of effort and determination” is incorrect. In interpreting the “voluntary act” requirement, the court characterized the evidence as showing that Lara was both conscious and “relentless in his effort and determination.” 183 Ariz. at 234, 902 P.2d at 1338 (offering examples of involuntary bodily movements that would not be “performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination”). See Model Penal Code § 2.01(2) (1985) (explaining reflexes, convulsions, movements during unconsciousness or sleep, conduct during hypnosis, and other bodily movements that otherwise are not the result of the effort or determination of the actor, are not “voluntary acts”).

6. We note that Tippetts has been extended to inmates who are charged with possessing contraband while in a correctional facility. See State v. Gotchall, 180 Or.App. 458, 43 P.3d 1121, 1121 (2002) (per curiam) (“If defendant did not voluntarily introduce contraband into the correctional facility, we do not see how ․ she could voluntarily possess that contraband once she was confined in the facility.”).

CONCURRING: LAWRENCE F. WINTHROP, Presiding Judge and PATRICK IRVINE, Judge.


Gilberto Alvarado

Gilberto Alvarado 82, of Rock Hill SC passed away peacefully February 28, 2021 of natural causes.

He was born in Manati, Puerto Rico in 1939 and resided in New York City, Waterbury, CT and final destination and residence in Rock Hill, SC.

Gilberto retired after 35 years of employment with P/Kaufman INC. Prior to employment he served in the United States Army and was part on the 101st Airborne Division and was stationed in Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He was honorably discharged in May of 1958.

Some of his favorite hobbies included bowling and doing household projects. He was an avid traveler.

Gilberto is survived by his wife Alba Alvarado of 47 years, 3 sons Dagoberto Alvarado, Tito Alvarado and Daniel Alvarado, 8 grandchildren and 2 great grandchildren.

Funeral Services for Gilberto Alvarado will be held 2:00pm Thursday at Rawlinson Road Baptist Church conducted by Rev. Michael Beeks.

Interment will follow at Rock Hill Memorial Gardens with Military Honors.

The family will receive friends Wednesday evening from 6:00pm until 8:00pm at Bass-Cauthen Funeral Home.

You may view the service live by liking the Facebook page, Palmetto Funeral Group

Following the service our staff will post it to our Facebook page so you may watch the service at a later time.

Bass-Cauthen funeral home staff provides the streaming services for those who can not attend or are uncomfortable in a group setting.

The funeral home staff and the family of Mr. Alvarado would like for us all to be safe and ask that we follow the appropriate guidelines for public gatherings.

To send flowers to the family or plant a tree in memory of Gilberto Alvarado, please visit our floral store.


Contents

The Alvarado Terrace Historic District is within the original Spanish Pueblo of Los Angeles boundaries established in 1781. During the late 19th century, the land was owned by Doria Deighton Jones, the widow of a wholesale grocer. In 1897, the Los Angeles Golf Club (predecessor of the Los Angeles Country Club) leased the land and built a nine-hole golf course that came to be known as "Windmill Links," due to the use of an old windmill as the clubhouse. [2] [3]

Jones subdivided the land into residential lots in 1902. The lots were sold for $10 each, with the caveat that the buyer was required to build a house costing at least $4,000. [4] The area was promoted as a "second Chester Place," referring to the city's most prestigious street in the West Adams district. [2] By 1906, the development was full. [4]

In an effort to enhance the neighborhood, one of its chief promoters (and president of the City Council), Pomeroy Powers, persuaded the city in 1904 to construct a park along Alvarado Terrace. Originally called Summerland Park, the park was soon renamed Terrace Park. The park included a fish pond, rosebeds, an underground tool shed, and a full-time gardener. The park was later remodeled with only grass and trees. There is a small strip of brick-paved street at the north end of the park known as "Powers Place" that holds the distinction as the "shortest street in Los Angeles." [3] [5] The park and brick-paved street were declared a Historic-Cultural Monument (HCM #210) in February 1979. [6] By 1983, Terrace Park was suffering from neglect and was described as "so bare it's hardly recognizable as a park." [5]

Alvarado Terrace has the distinction of having six houses on a single block (all on the north side) designated as Historic-Cultural Monuments by the City of Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission. The six houses were designated as Historic-Cultural Monument nos. 83-88 in July 1971. [6] The houses were built on a raised terrace overlooking Terrace Park. The designated homes were built between 1902 and 1905 and reflect a rich eclecticism in their architectural style. They include Craftsman, Victorian, Mission, Tudor, and Shingle style architecture. A real estate brochure from 1903 described the neighborhood this way: "The only exclusive Residential Tract in the city. Beautiful Parks. Shade Trees Planted. High Class building restrictions. No flats, cottages or stores. Wide streets conforming to the contour of the land with cement sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Perfect sewer system, water, gas, electric lights. " [4] With the park and well-preserved homes, the district provides a complete historic neighborhood that has been featured in motion picture and television productions. While the surrounding area has been described as "low-income and multicultural," the Los Angeles Times in 1991 described Alvarado Terrace as "a slice of L.A.'s genteel and moneyed past preserved." [7]

Boyle-Barmore House Edit

As one enters Alvarado Terrace from the north, the first of the designated homes is Boyle-Barmore House, located at 1317 Alvarado Terrace (pictured, above left). Built in 1905, the house was designed by architect Charles E. Shattuck in a Craftsman style with Tudor influences, including a three-gabled dormer. The house was built for Calvin A. Boyle, one of the founders of the Hollywood Board of Trade. The house was acquired in 1908 by Edmund H. Barmore, president of the Los Angeles Transfer Company. The house was used in the 1980s as a women's shelter by the Union Rescue Mission. [2]

Cohn House Edit

The second of the designated homes on the north side of the street is the Cohn House at 1325 Alvarado Terrace. Built in 1902, the house was designed by Frank D. Hudson and William Munsell. Hudson and Munsell also designed the Museum of Science and Industry, the first museum built in the city's Exposition Park. Cohn House combines Craftsman style in its first floor of rock-faced sandstone, and a second level reflecting the Shingle style. The house also has three gabled dormers that give the house the look of a Swiss chalet. The house was built for Morris Cohn, a textile manufacturer. Cohn has the distinction of having both his residence and his textile factory designated as Historic-Cultural Monuments (HCM #84 and HCM #110). [6] Cohn House was used in the 1980s as a men's shelter by the Union Rescue Mission. [2]

Gilbert House Edit

Gilbert House, located at 1333 Alvaardo Terrace (pictured above right), was built on speculation in 1903 by Ida and Pomeroy Powers, who also built and lived in the Powers House next door. Gilbert House is one of the most eye-catching homes in the district built with a mix of Victorian, Shingle-Style and Craftsman styles. The house was first purchased and occupied by Wilbur F. Gilbert, a wealthy Texas oil man. Gilbert's daughter, Carolyn McCulloch (d. December 24, 1992), was still living in the house in the 1980s.

Powers House Edit

Powers House at 1345 Alvarado Terrace (HCM #86) was built in 1903 for Pomeroy Wells Powers and his wife Ida. Designed by Arthur L. Haley, the home is built in the Mission Revival style, and has been described as "exuberant" and the "flashiest on the block" for its fanciful stucco curlicue. [5] The stucco house has an arcaded veranda that supports a second-floor balcony. Rising from the balcony are towers connected by a curved parapet wall. The large corner tower has a loft room accessible only from the home's exterior.

Pomeroy Powers was a lawyer who was one of the original developers of Alvarado Terrace. He was also a member of the City Council and an officer of the Juanity Mining Company and the Short Line Beach Company. [2] The house was restored in the mid-1970s by owner Ann Gutierrez, including new walls, plumbing, wiring and ceilings. [5] In the 1990s, the house was used as a restaurant known as Salisbury Manor, with dining downstairs and the upstairs consisting of restored bedrooms available for viewing by patrons. A review of the restaurant noted that, "with some myopia and imagination," the restaurant and neighborhood allowed a glimpse of an earlier era. [7] "What with the good decent food, a dose of history tempered with nostalgia, a seat in a shaft of afternoon sun and a cup of chamomile tea in my hand, I couldn't help but think there are far worse things in life than a meal on Alvarado Terrace." [7]

Raphael House Edit

The Tudor-style Raphael House at 1353 Alvarado Terrace (HCM #87), built in 1903, was designed by architects Sumner P. Hunt and Wesley A. Eager. Hunt was also responsible for the Raymond Hotel in Pasadena, the Casa de Rosas in North University Park, the Automobile Club building at Figueroa and West Adams, and Ebell of Los Angeles. Originally owned by Robert H. Raphael, the owner of Raphael Glass Company, the house is noted for its extensive use of both stained and leaded glass. [2] Over the Labor Day weekend in 1995, the owner stripped Raphael House of some of its finer accessories, including stained glass windows, wooden fireplaces, and even the plaques identifying its historical status. The city's Department of Building and Safety stepped in and ordered the owner to return the fixtures or face fines and possible jail time. [8]

Kinney-Everhardy House Edit

Built in 1902, the Kinney-Everhardy House at 1401 Alvarado Terrace (HCM #88) was built by the same architects (Hunt & Eager) who designed the Raphael House next door. The house has been described as "an eclectic combination of elements from both the Queen Anne and Shingle styles." [2]

The district also includes the former First Church of Christ, Scientist built in 1912 on an odd-shaped lot at the corner of Alvarado and Hoover Streets. The church was designed by architect Elmer Grey, who was also responsible for the Beverly Hills Hotel (1911), the Huntington Gallery and Library (1910), and the Pasadena Playhouse (1924–25). The church has been variously described as Beaux-Arts, Italian and Spanish Romanesque, and Mediterranean. The building's most notable features include its semi-circular porch with fluted columns, brick tower, rounded arches, and tiled roof. [2]

The building has had a colorful history, having housed Jim Jones' Peoples Temple from 1970 until their move to Jonestown, Guyana in 1977. [2] [9] In 1975, the Los Angeles Times noted the Peoples Temple's move into the old church: "People's Temple, a Disciples of Christ church, now occupies the old First Church building." [10] After the mass suicide in Jonestown, the Times noted that the Peoples Temple had moved out of the "huge Italian Renaissance-style church" in 1977. [11]

The church was designated as Historic-Cultural Monument no. 89 in 1971. [6] In 2008, the church was operated as the "Iglesia Adventista Central," as shown in the adjacent picture. An interesting profile and several photographs of the church can be found on the Big Orange Landmarks web site.

In 1983, the Alvarado Terrace area was submitted to the Department of Interior to be considered for designation as the city's third officially recognized historic district. (Wilton Place and Whitley Heights were designated earlier.) To draw attention to the effort, many of the homes were opened to tours. [5] The district obtained the recognition it sought in 1984 with its inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Pico Union became the city's 19th Historic Preservation Overlay Zone Historic Preservation Overlay Zone on August 10, 2004. HPOZ Map


Watch the video: Gilberto Gil e Kofi Annan - Setembro de 2003 na ONU. show completo na playlist Show da Paz