In Re Victor B.

California Court of Appeal Mar 31, 1994 No. G014365Published

Before: Wallin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a temporary detention for brief, casual questioning does not constitute custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings, and that an altered tool with no purpose other than stabbing qualifies as a dirk or dagger under Penal Code section 12020.

Issues

Whether a suspect's statement made during a temporary detention was obtained in violation of Miranda rights.
Whether an altered tool used for protection qualifies as a 'dirk or dagger' under Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a).

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Several cases hold a temporary detention which results in preliminary questioning does not require Miranda warnings.”

“To be considered a "dirk or dagger" as a matter of law, the court in Forrest held the object must have been designed for the primary purpose of stabbing.”

“The object here, like that in Pettway, features finger grips and serves no other purpose than stabbing.”

24 Cal.App.4th 521 (1994) 29 Cal. Rptr.2d 362 In re VICTOR B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

VICTOR B., Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. G014365. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.

March 31, 1994. [523] COUNSEL

Lee Rittenburg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Janelle Davis and David Delgado-Rucci, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

WALLIN, J.

Victor B. was declared a ward of the court (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) after being found in possession of a dirk or dagger in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a).[1] He contends the trial court erred in admitting his statement to police that he carried the instrument for "protection" because he had not been advised of his Miranda[2] rights. He also contends that as a matter of law the object was not a dirk or dagger. We affirm.

Orange County Sheriff Deputy Jimmy Rubio investigated a complaint that a group of boys were on a bike path throwing rocks at passing vehicles. He saw five male youths on the bike trail whom he recognized as gang members. They were walking quickly away from the street towards a housing tract when Rubio ordered them to stop.

In a patdown search of Victor, Rubio found an object in his left rear pocket. The object, a photocopy of which is attached as appendix "A," consists of 2 three-and-one-half-inch pieces with 1 piece fitting inside the other. The assembled object has finger grips and is five and three-quarter inches long, including a metal point of one and three-eighths inches. Rubio asked Victor why he carried the object. Victor replied, "For protection."

In Re Victor B.

AI Brief

OPINION

WALLIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief