In Re Ricardo A.

California Court of Appeal Jan 31, 2000 No. B133005Published

Before: Gilbert

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a weapon disguised as an ordinary object, such as a pen, and positioned to obscure its true nature, satisfies the substantial concealment requirement for a dirk or dagger under Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a).

Issues

Whether a dirk disguised as a pen and placed behind the ear satisfies the substantial concealment requirement of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a).
Whether concealment within clothing is the exclusive method of establishing substantial concealment for a dirk or dagger.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The dirk or dagger need not be entirely concealed; substantial concealment is sufficient.”

“The juvenile court concluded that Ricardo substantially concealed the dirk by a combination of its appearance as a pen and the placement of the point behind his ear.”

92 Cal.Rptr.2d 349 (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1265 In re RICARDO A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,

Ricardo A., Defendant and Appellant.

No. B133005. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six.

January 31, 2000. Review Denied May 17, 2000.[*] California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, David P. Druliner, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Wendelin Pollack, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, M. Susan Sullivan, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

GILBERT, P.J.

The juvenile court sustained a petition charging Ricardo A. with carrying a dirk or dagger in violation of Penal Code section [350] 12020, subdivision (a).[1] Violation of that section requires the dirk or dagger to be substantially concealed on the person of the offender.

Ricardo contends that the dirk he was carrying was in plain view. The juvenile court's finding that the dirk was substantially concealed was supported by evidence that the dirk appeared to be a pen and that the point was concealed behind Ricardo's ear. We affirm.

FACTS

On August 28, 1998, Officer Karl Dyer was working as a detective at Channel Islands High School. He saw four or five persons, three of whom he recognized. All had shaved heads and baggy pants. Ricardo was one of them.

Officer Dyer conducted a patdown search for his safety. As he was patting down Ricardo he saw what from the front appeared to be a pen resting on his ear. When Officer Dyer moved around to Ricardo's back he saw that the pen was actually a dirk. A Bic pen had been modified so that a Phillip's head-screwdriver was inserted into the pen with the sharpened point protruding from the pen cap. The point of the screwdriver was at the back of Ricardo's head behind his ear. The device was six to eight inches long.

In Re Ricardo A.

AI Brief

GILBERT, P.J.

FACTS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

NOTES

AI Brief