In Re Martin Alonzo L.

California Court of Appeal Aug 21, 2006 No. B186132Published

Before: Yegan, Gilbert, Perren

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that possession of metal knuckles is a general intent crime and that the defendant's intended use of the object is not an element of the offense. Substantial evidence supported the finding that the defendant knowingly possessed an object designed for offense or defense.

Issues

Whether an object resembling a wallet with metal spikes meets the statutory definition of metal knuckles under Penal Code section 12020.
Whether the prosecution must prove the defendant intended to use the object as a weapon to sustain a conviction for possession of metal knuckles.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The offense defined by section 12020, subdivision (a)(1) is a general intent crime.”

“defendant’s intended use is not an element of the crime, and ‘no further mental state beyond willing commission of the act proscribed by law’ is necessary.”

“A reasonable trier of fact could conclude appellant was aware of this fact and thus knew it could be used for purposes of offense or defense.”

Opinion

YEGAN, J.

Martin Alonzo L. appeals from the trial court’s order sustaining a Welfare & Institutions Code section 602 petition, which alleged that he possessed metal knuckles in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivisions (a)(1) and (c)(7).

The trial court declared the matter a misdemeanor, continued appellant on probation and placed him in the custody of his mother. He contends the order is not supported by substantial evidence because the object at issue, which he calls a wallet with “decorative” metal spikes along one edge, does not meet the statutory definition of metal knuckles. We affirm.

Facts

About 10:00 p.m. on August 7, 2005, someone called the Guadalupe Police Department to complain of being threatened by a group of young men. Officer Davis responded to the call, where he met appellant and other juveniles. While patting down appellant, the officer noted that appellant appeared to have a wallet in his back pocket that was attached to a belt loop by a metal chain. When folded, the “wallet” is about five and one-half inches long. Five one-inch long metal spikes are embedded in the leather along one edge. (See appen.) The middle three spikes are spaced about three-fourths of an inch apart from one another. At the hearing, Officer Davis demonstrated that, if he held the “wallet” in his palm, the metal spikes would fit between his fingers and would protrude if he closed his hand around the “wallet” in a fist.

[96]

Discussion

Section 12020, subdivision (a)(1) prohibits the possession of “any metal knuckles,” defined in section 12020, subdivision (c)(7), as “any device or instrument made wholly or partially of metal which is worn for purposes of offense or defense in or on the hand and which either protects the wearer’s hand while striking a blow or increases the force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving the blow. The metal contained in the device may help support the hand or fist, provide a shield to protect it, or consist of projections or studs which would contact the individual receiving the blow.” Appellant contends his “wallet” does not meet the statutory definition of “metal knuckles” because there is no evidence he knew it could be used as a weapon or that he ever had used it as a weapon.

In Re Martin Alonzo L.

AI Brief

YEGAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief