People v. Phillips

California Court of Appeal Aug 12, 1970 No. Crim. No. 3774Published

Before: Brown, Gerald

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant's statement explaining possession of a sawed-off shotgun is admissible as an admission of dominion and control, and that the crime of possessing such a weapon does not require proof of criminal use.

Issues

Whether a defendant's statement regarding possession of a weapon is admissible as an admission.
Whether testimony regarding a defendant's actions with a weapon is admissible based on personal knowledge.
Whether the crime of possessing a sawed-off shotgun requires proof of criminal use.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This answer was admissible as an admission he intended to exercise dominion and control over the weapon”

“Testimony Phillips appeared to be reaching for the shotgun’s trigger was properly admitted as factual and within the witness’ personal knowledge”

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J. Henry C. Phillips possessed a sawed-off shotgun, and was convicted for violating Penal Code, section 12020.

After the gun was taken from Phillips in a cafe tussle the cafe cook, Mildred Malone, asked Phillips why he had come to the cafe with a gun. He answered some people had tried to rob him that night. This answer was admissible as an admission he intended to exercise dominion and control over the weapon (Evid. Code, § 1220).

Testimony Phillips appeared to be reaching for the shotgun’s trigger was properly admitted as factual and within the witness’ personal knowledge (Evid. Code, § 702).

The crime is possessing a sawed-off shotgun, not requiring its [490]criminal use (People v. Stinson, 8 Cal.App.3d 497, 501 [87 Cal.Rptr. 537]; People v. Wasley, 245 Cal.App.2d 383, 385, 386 [53 Cal.Rptr. 877]).

Judgment affirmed.

Coughlin, J., and Whelan, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 9, 1970.

People v. Phillips

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief