People v. Johnson

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

*

Cedric James Johnson appeals from a judgment of imprisonment which was rendered after a jury found him guilty of possession of a dangerous weapon, commonly known as a Chinese Throwing Star (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (c)).

A Bakersfield police officer stopped appellant at night for speeding. When the officer shined his flashlight over the inside of the car, he saw protruding from beneath the front seat the point of what appeared to be a dagger. The officer seized the weapon, which proved to be not a dagger but an instrument known as a “Chinese Throwing Star,” made up of four very sharp steel blades welded together. Each blade was more than three inches long.

Appellant told the officer that he had made the weapon that day in a welding class, intending to use it as an ornament for his motorcycle.

Appellant contends that the court erred when it precluded defense counsel, in the course of the cross-examination of a prosecution witness, from introducing in evidence two smaller wooden replicas of the weapon. The prosecution witness had been demonstrating that the star could not easily be attached to a motorcycle; the defense produced the two wooden exemplars for the purpose of illustrating how a set of several

[55]

of the stars could be mounted together to form an ornament. But neither evidence nor an offer of proof was presented tending to show that the wooden exemplars had been intended by appellant for the purpose indicated. It lies within the discretionary power of the trial court to regulate the presentation of evidence with a view to prevent digressions into speculative and tangential areas. (See Evid. Code, § 352.) It was not an abuse of discretion to preclude speculation concerning the exemplars.

A friend of appellant testified that he had seen the star while appellant was fashioning it. Defense counsel asked the witness whether appellant had indicated what it was to be used for. The court sustained an objection by the prosecution, rejecting the theory that appellant’s statement to his friend was admissible to show appellant’s state of mind. (Evid. Code, §§ 1250, 1251.) Appellant contends that this ruling was error. But appellant’s state of mind in making the implement has no relevance to the charge that he possessed the implement when he was arrested. The implement was specifically proscribed by the statute; it was not an “innocent-appearing utensil,” the possession of which is punishable under the legislation only when “the circumstances of possession demonstrate an immediate atmosphere of danger.” (See