In Re Conrad

176 Cal.App.3d 775 (1986) 222 Cal. Rptr. 552 In re CONRAD V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

WILLIAM FORDEN, as Chief Probation Officer, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CONRAD V., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. B009912. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six.

January 9, 1986. [776] COUNSEL

Linn Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson and Lauren E. Dana, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

ABBE, J.

The minor was found to have been unlawfully carrying a concealed dirk or dagger on his person in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a).[1] (1a) The sole issue we address is whether the knife-like instrument the minor had is a dirk or dagger within the meaning of that section. We conclude it is not and reverse.

The instrument, a photocopy of which is attached as appendix A, is a metal object three inches in length. The blade is one and one-half inches long, curved on both sides, and beveled and sharpened on the front of one side. The flat side of the blade is smooth and approximately one-eighth inch thick as is the remainder of the instrument. It has no handle and no guard to protect the hand from slipping onto the blade. It appears to be designed to fit between two fingers of the hand with the blade projecting outward. The top portion is smooth and slightly rounded to fit behind two fingers and into the palm of the hand.[2] This knife was the only evidence offered on the issue whether it was a dirk or dagger.

[777]