People v. Castillolopez

Decision Date02 June 2016
Docket NumberNo. S218861.,S218861.
Parties The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Emmanuel CASTILLOLOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court

63 Cal.4th 322
371 P.3d 216
202 Cal.Rptr.3d 703

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Emmanuel CASTILLOLOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S218861.

Supreme Court of California

June 2, 2016.


202 Cal.Rptr.3d 704

Raymond Mark DiGuiseppe, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Maureen M. Bodo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck and Daniel C. Lawson for American Knife & Tool Institute as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate and George M. Lee for Knife Rights Foundation, Inc., and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette and Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Steven T. Oetting, Deputy State Solicitor General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, William M. Wood, Meagan J. Beale and Jennifer B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

KRUGER, J.

63 Cal.4th 324

A police officer found a Swiss Army knife in a pocket of defendant Emmanuel Castillolopez's jacket. One of the blades was fully extended. Defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger in violation of Penal Code section 21310. Penal Code section 16470 defines a “ ‘dirk’ or ‘dagger’ ” as “a knife ... that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death.” Under this definition, “a pocketknife is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon ... only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position.” (ibid. )

371 P.3d 217

The Court of Appeal reversed defendant's conviction, ruling that there was no substantial evidence that the open blade of the Swiss Army knife was “ locked into position” within the meaning of Penal Code section 16470 because the knife could be closed simply by folding the blade back into the

63 Cal.4th 325

handle. We agree that defendant's conviction cannot stand and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

I.

At about 10 p.m. on July 29, 2012, San Diego Police Officer Bryce Charpentier stopped a car in which defendant Emmanuel Castillolopez was riding as a passenger. During a patdown search, the officer found a knife in the front pocket of defendant's jacket. Officer Charpentier testified that “it was a collapsible knife, and the blade was in a locked, open position.” The knife was a Swiss Army knife with multiple blades; only the “large blade” was exposed.

Officer Charpentier demonstrated at trial how to return the blade to its closed position:

“[Defense Counsel] You took the body of the knife in your right hand; correct?

“[Officer Charpentier] Yes, sir.

“Q Put your left hand on the blade of the knife?
202 Cal.Rptr.3d 705
“A Correct, sir.

“Q Pushed the blade down into the body of the knife?

“A That is correct.

“Q Did you have to do anything to be able to perform that? Is there anything you have to push on the knife or anything like that to be able to do that?

“A I have to use force to close it.”

Cameron Gary, a supervising investigator for the San Diego County District Attorney's Office, testified for the prosecution as a weapons expert. Gary testified that the blade of the knife was 2 to 3 inches long and had “a friction, slash, spring lock. There's many different terms for it. I don't remember the exact term for this particular type.” He explained: “[Y]ou've got ... a fingernail type of indentation on the side of the blade. So you can actually take your fingernail and pull out. And you're going to feel some friction and spring tension. The spring tension drops the spring mechanisms inside the knife that resists you from opening it. Once you get past a certain
63 Cal.4th 326
point, the resistance releases, and then it locks into place.... [Y]ou have to overcome that spring tension and that friction in order to close it back up again. That's what holds it in place.” Gary added that there was a “ kind of a clicking sound” when the blade opened, which meant the blade was “ locked” into position. In Gary's opinion, every folding knife is similarly capable of being “locked”: “[T]here is no folding knife that doesn't lock some way because, otherwise, the blade wouldn't be able to stay in place if you're trying to impale something or to cut it.”

Although Gary testified that, in his view, the blade was locked, he observed that he would “have a difficult time punching through this binder obviously with this—without it collapsing.” When asked if he would describe a Swiss Army knife “as a defensive weapon,” Gary answered, “I would actually describe it as more of a tool.”

On cross-examination, Gary again closed the knife and agreed with defense counsel's description that “all you did was apply pressure to the blade and it closed.” He also agreed “there are knives in existence where you have to manipulate the locking mechanism on the knife to be able to close the blade.” Gary further agreed that the effectiveness of defendant's Swiss Army knife “as far as stabbing is limited because should it hit something hard like bone, there is a risk of it collapsing on the user.” When asked whether he agreed that the knife was “primarily not a stabbing instrument,” Gary again testified that he would “classify this as being more of a tool.”

Defendant called as an expert witness Raymond Flores, who sells knives at a uniform store that caters to law enforcement and fire department personnel. He described a “locking blade knife” as follows:

“[Flores] It would be a knife that when it's expanded, it would lock into place, and you
371 P.3d 218
would have to press a release to collapse it, to make it fold again.

“[Defense counsel] You would agree then, wouldn't you, that in order to close a locking blade knife, you would have to do something to unlock the blade?

“A That is correct.

“Q You can't just, by putting pressure on the blade, close a locking blade knife; correct?

“A No, sir.”
63 Cal.4th 327

Flores testified that defendant's Swiss Army knife was not a locking blade knife, because “[t]here's no device that—once a blade is open, that you have to depress to

202 Cal.Rptr.3d 706

collapse the knife.” Flores agreed that he would consider a Swiss Army knife to be “a multi-tool or survival tool.”

Defendant was convicted of a felony violation of carrying upon his person a concealed dirk or dagger and admitted that he had served a prior prison term and had suffered a “strike” prior conviction for a serious or violent felony. (Pen.Code, §§ 21310, 667.5, subd. (b), 667, subds. (b) -(i), 1170.12.) He was sentenced to the lower term of 16 months in prison, doubled under the Three Strikes law based on his prior conviction, plus a one-year enhancement for the prior prison term, for a total of three years and eight months in prison. (Ibid. )

The Court of Appeal reversed defendant's conviction, holding that “the phrase ‘locked into position’ in section 16470 plainly means ‘firmly fixed in place or securely attached so as to be immovable,’ ” and finding insufficient evidence that the exposed blade of defendant's Swiss Army knife satisfied that definition.

II. A.

Penal Code section 21310 makes it a criminal offense to carry “concealed upon the person any dirk or dagger.” The origins of the statute can be traced to 1917, when the Legislature enacted a statute that prohibited possessing several types of dangerous weapons “ ‘commonly associated with criminal activity’ ” (People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, 544, 262 Cal.Rptr. 1, 778 P.2d 129 ), including “a blackjack, slungshot, billy, ... metal knuckles, [or] bomb,” and carrying “a dirk or a dagger.” (Stats.1917, ch. 145, § 2, p. 221; see People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322, 328–329, 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 735, 1 P.3d 52 (Rubalcava ).) In 1923, the law was changed to prohibit carrying a dirk or dagger only if it was “concealed upon his person.” (Stats.1923, ch. 339, §§ 1, 17, pp. 696, 702.)1

Neither of these statutes defined the terms “dirk” or “dagger.” Courts accordingly construed these terms in accordance with their dictionary definitions: “Dirk and dagger are used synonymously and consist of any straight stabbing weapon, as a dirk, stiletto, etc. (Century Dict.) They may consist of any weapon fitted primarily for stabbing. The word dagger is a generic term

63 Cal.4th 328

covering the dirk, stiletto, poniard, etc. (Standard Dict.)” (People v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • People v. Glukhoy
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 18, 2022
    ...and amended statutes " ‘in the light of such decisions as have a direct bearing upon them .’ " ’ " ( People v. Castillolopez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 322, 331, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 703, 371 P.3d 216, italics added; People v. Licas (2007) 41 Cal.4th 362, 367, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 31, 159 P.3d 507 ( Licas ); P......
  • People v. Castillolopez
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 2, 2016
    ...63 Cal.4th 322371 P.3d 216202 Cal.Rptr.3d 703The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondentv.Emmanuel CASTILLOLOPEZ, Defendant and Appellant.No. S218861.Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 2, 2016.202 Cal.Rptr.3d 704 Raymond Mark DiGuiseppe, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Maureen M. Bodo, un......

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