People v. La Grande

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

The People appeal from dismissal of the information after the granting of respondent’s motion made pursuant to Penal Code section 995. The issue is whether an awl is not a dirk or a dagger as a matter of law.

Respondent was charged with a violation of Penal Code section 12020, carrying a dirk or a dagger concealed upon his person. Respondent was arrested after being discovered asleep or unconscious on a bus bench. Preparatory to transporting respondent to jail, the officers pat searched him and discovered an awl in his pants waistband. An awl is a pointed instrument for marking surfaces or piercing small holes, as in leather or wood. The awl in the instant case is about seven and one-half inches long, has a sharp point, and is slightly curved; it had not been altered.

The People contend that the awl is fitted and designed primarily for stabbing, and that whether it is a dirk or a dagger when concealed upon a person should be a question for the trier of fact.

[873]

We have recently held, however, that an unaltered tool or instrument other than a knife, designed not as a weapon but only as a cutting tool, which is neither fitted primarily nor designed primarily for stabbing, is not a dirk or a dagger as a matter of law.

(Bills

v.

Superior Court

(1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 855 [150 Cal.Rptr. 582] [barber scissors].)

The People attempt to distinguish

Bills

in that, unlike

Bills,

the instrument here is not a cutting instrument. They contend that an awl is designed expressly to stab, and whether the manufacturer designed it to stab people is insignificant. The “fitted primarily for stabbing” language of

Bills,

however, finds its source in