Conrad v., In re

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtABBE; STONE, P.J., and GILBERT
Citation176 Cal.App.3d 775,222 Cal.Rptr. 552
PartiesIn the Matter of CONRAD V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. In the Matter of CONRAD V., A Minor and Appellant, v. William FORDEN, Chief Probation Officer and Respondent. Crim. B009912.
Decision Date09 January 1986

Page 552

222 Cal.Rptr. 552
176 Cal.App.3d 775
In the Matter of CONRAD V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
In the Matter of CONRAD V., A Minor and Appellant,
v.
William FORDEN, Chief Probation Officer and Respondent.
Crim. B009912.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6, California.
Jan. 9, 1986.

[176 Cal.App.3d 776] Lynn Davis, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for appellant.

John Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Robert R. Anderson, Supervising Deputy Atty. Gen., Lauren E. Dana, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

ABBE, Associate Justice.

The minor was found to have been unlawfully carrying a concealed dirk or dagger on his person in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a). 1 The sole issue we address is whether the knife-like instrument the minor had is a dirk or dagger within the meaning of that section. We conclude it is not and reverse.

Page 553

The instrument, a photocopy of which is attached as appendix A, is a metal object three inches in length. The blade is one and one-half inches long, curved on both sides, and beveled and sharpened on the front of one side. The flat side of the blade is smooth and approximately one-eighth inch thick as is the remainder of the instrument. It has no handle and no guard to protect the hand from slipping onto the blade. It appears to be designed to fit between two fingers of the hand with the blade projecting outward. The top portion is smooth and slightly rounded to fit behind two fingers and into the palm of the hand. 2 This knife was the only evidence offered on the issue whether it was a dirk or dagger.

[176 Cal.App.3d 777] Section 12020 is one of several penal statutes relating to weapons. The statutes fit into five general categories: (1) those which absolutely prohibit possession of certain weapons in the state (e.g., §§ 12020, 653k), (2) those which prohibit possession of weapons in certain places (e.g., §§ 626.10, 12031), (3) those which prohibit possession by certain persons (e.g., §§ 4502, 12021, 12021.1, 12021.5), (4) those which restrict the manner in which weapons can be carried (e.g., §§ 12020, 12025, 12028, 12031), (5) and those which prohibit and punish criminal uses of weapons (e.g., §§ 245, 417, 467, 12022.3, 12022.5 and 12023). The use prohibition statutes are the least specific as to the weapons covered; the absolute prohibitions are described in the most specific terms. Dirks and daggers are expressly mentioned in place ( § 626.10), person ( § 4502) and concealment ( § 12020) prohibition statutes only.They are undoubtedly also included within the general description of dangerous or deadly weapons in some of the use prohibition statutes. (E.g., §§ 245, 4501 and 12022.3.)

Since section 12020, subdivision (a), is a penal statute, it must be strictly construed. (People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 850, 97 Cal.Rptr. 684, 489 P.2d 564.) Despite the fact the Legislature...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • People v. Mowatt, Nos. A072760
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 22, 1997
    ...they were not]; People v. Pettway, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1070-1071, 285 Cal.Rptr. 147 [disagreeing with In re Conrad V. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 775, 778, 222 Cal.Rptr. 552, regarding status of very similar unorthodox stabbing weapons with short blades designed to protrude between finge......
  • People v. Pettway, No. A052481
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 28, 1991
    ...within the meaning of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a) (hereafter § 12020(a)). We disagree with In re Conrad V. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 775, 222 Cal.Rptr. 552, which held that a similar knife was not a dagger, in part because it did not have a Defendant Curtis T. Pettway appeals from......
  • Montanez v. City of Indio, Case No. 5:17-cv-00130-ODW(SHK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • April 25, 2018
    ...that the courts have consistently recognized that scissors have been held as a deadly weapon. (Mot. 9); e.g., In re Conrad V., 176 Cal. App. 3d 775 (1986) (stating that items such as scissors and letter openers can be used as deadly weapons); People v. Mitchell, 4 Cal. App. 5th 349 (2016) (......
  • Victor B., In re, No. G014365
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 1994
    ...than as a stabbing weapon. Victor contends the object's length precludes its classification as a dirk or dagger. In re Conrad V. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 775, 222 Cal.Rptr. 552 held an instrument with a blade one and one-half inches long, curved on both sides, and beveled and sharpened on the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • People v. Mowatt, Nos. A072760
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • July 22, 1997
    ...they were not]; People v. Pettway, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1070-1071, 285 Cal.Rptr. 147 [disagreeing with In re Conrad V. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 775, 778, 222 Cal.Rptr. 552, regarding status of very similar unorthodox stabbing weapons with short blades designed to protrude between finge......
  • People v. Pettway, No. A052481
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 28, 1991
    ...within the meaning of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a) (hereafter § 12020(a)). We disagree with In re Conrad V. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 775, 222 Cal.Rptr. 552, which held that a similar knife was not a dagger, in part because it did not have a Defendant Curtis T. Pettway appeals from......
  • Montanez v. City of Indio, Case No. 5:17-cv-00130-ODW(SHK)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • April 25, 2018
    ...that the courts have consistently recognized that scissors have been held as a deadly weapon. (Mot. 9); e.g., In re Conrad V., 176 Cal. App. 3d 775 (1986) (stating that items such as scissors and letter openers can be used as deadly weapons); People v. Mitchell, 4 Cal. App. 5th 349 (2016) (......
  • Victor B., In re, No. G014365
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 1994
    ...than as a stabbing weapon. Victor contends the object's length precludes its classification as a dirk or dagger. In re Conrad V. (1986) 176 Cal.App.3d 775, 222 Cal.Rptr. 552 held an instrument with a blade one and one-half inches long, curved on both sides, and beveled and sharpened on the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT