California Court of Appeal Mar 20, 2014 No. D063533Unpublished
Filed 3/20/14 P. v. King CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D063533
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. SDC239857)
MALIK AMEEN KING,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard S.
Whitney, Judge. Affirmed.
Thomas E. Robertson for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Joy Utomi,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
A jury found Malik Ameen King guilty of one count of willfully discharging a
firearm in a grossly negligent manner which could result in injury or death to a person.
The trial court sentenced King to a prison term of two years. King appeals, contending
there is insufficient evidence to show he intentionally discharged the firearm. We
People v. Ainsworth (1988) 45 Cal.3d 984, 1022.) The reviewing court's task is to review
the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment. (People v. Rodriguez
(1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 11.)
King contends that since the statute prohibits the willful discharge of a firearm,
evidence of intent to fire the firearm is required. King does not dispute that the evidence
shows deactivation of the manual safety and forceful pulling of the trigger. Rather, he
asserts the evidence does not support his conviction because there is no evidence that he
knew the gun was loaded, and, therefore, there is no evidence that he intended to
discharge the gun when he pulled the trigger. We reject his assertion.
Penal Code section 246.3 criminalizes the "willful[] discharge[] [of] a firearm in a
grossly negligent manner which could result in injury or death to a person."
(Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The term " 'willfully' "
requires the defendant to purposefully and intentionally commit the prohibited conduct.
(In re Jerry R. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1438-1439 (Jerry R.).) As the Jerry R. court
4
stated, "[t]he prohibited conduct, the discharge of a firearm, is commonly understood to
mean the firing or shooting of a weapon by expelling the charge or bullet." (Id. at
p. 1439.) Therefore, the statute requires proof that the defendant purposefully and
intentionally fired the firearm, "with the added requirement that the firing occurred in a
grossly negligent manner which could result in injury or death." (Ibid.)
The defendant in Jerry R. was charged with violating section 246.3 when he shot
one of his friends in the chest. (In re Jerry R., supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1434-1435.)
Defendant testified that he bought the gun from one of his friends prior to meeting up
with another group of friends that included the victim. (Id. at p. 1436.) Defendant
showed the gun to the victim. As he removed the clip that contained bullets from the
gun, a bullet popped out. After he thought the gun was empty, the defendant started
playing and waving the gun around. He then pointed the gun at the victim and the gun
fired when the victim bumped him. The defendant testified he thought the gun was
unloaded, as evidenced by his affirmative action to disarm the gun. (Ibid.) The Jerry R.
court explained that an "honest belief that a gun is empty negatives the mental state of an
intent to fire the gun." (Id. at p. 1441.) Consequently, the defendant did not willfully and
intentionally discharge the gun.
Here, there was sufficient evidence in the record from which a jury could
reasonably infer that King intended to discharge the weapon when he pulled the trigger.
The People had a firearms and ammunition components expert testify in great detail
regarding the necessary procedure to fire King's gun. The People relied on the expert to
prove that the gun did not go off by accident, but it had been intentionally discharged.
5
The expert explained that King would have to possess a magazine. King would have to
manually put the right caliber or type of ammunition in the magazine. The magazine
would have to be placed into the magazine well of the gun. King would then have to
release the slide to strip a cartridge from the magazine. Then, he would have to
deactivate the safety mechanism and pull the trigger.
The expert also identified and explained the significance of multiple safety
mechanisms of King's gun. One of the safety mechanisms is the thumb safety. The
thumb safety is a manual safety which you "push up and down" in order to shoot the gun.
In other words, the expert explained, the thumb safety prevents "anything from
happening" with the gun. To discharge the gun, the thumb safety, located on the outside
of the gun, needed to be manually deactivated. King's gun also had a firing pin safety.
The firing pin safety is an internal mechanism that operates to prevent the firing pin from
going forward, unless the trigger is pulled. Finally, King's gun had a disconnector. The
purpose of the disconnector is to disconnect the trigger from the firing mechanism and
"in order to connect it you have to let it go. Allow it to pop up and reconnect." The three
safety mechanisms prevent the gun from accidently or unintentionally discharging. The
expert testified that all safety mechanisms in King's gun functioned properly.
Unlike Jerry R., the testimony of the expert shows that King did not take any
affirmative steps to unload or otherwise deactivate the firing capabilities of the gun which
could support a good faith belief that the gun was unloaded. King never stated that he
believed the gun was empty. There is not a scintilla of evidence in the record that
supports the notion that King had an "honest belief that [the] gun was empty." (Jerry R.,
6
supra, 29 Cal.App4th at p. 1440.) To the contrary, the expert testified that to discharge
the gun, King took affirmative steps to load the gun, disarm the manual safety and pull
the trigger. This is indicative of King's intent to discharge the gun.
Absent direct evidence that the gun was loaded, a defendant's own words, behavior
and conduct in the course of an offense may support a rational fact finder's inference.
(People v. Rodriguez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1, 12.) Based on the expert's testimony, King's
conduct of intentionally going through the systematic process of loading the magazine,
loading the magazine into the gun, manually deactivating the thumb safety and pulling
the trigger, supports a reasonable inference that King intentionally discharged the gun.
Substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that King intentionally
discharged the gun. We are unable to conclude that the jury could not reasonably make
such a determination.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McINTYRE, J. WE CONCUR:
NARES, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the defendant's conviction for willfully discharging a firearm, as the expert testimony regarding the complex, multi-step process required to fire the weapon allowed the jury to reasonably infer the defendant's intent.
Issues
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant intentionally discharged a firearm.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that King intentionally discharged the gun.”
“King's conduct of intentionally going through the systematic process of loading the magazine, loading the magazine into the gun, manually deactivating the thumb safety and pulling the trigger, supports a reasonable inference that King intentionally”