People v. Evans

Decision Date19 December 1969
Docket NumberCr. 7758
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles W. EVANS, Defendant and Appellant.

Scott Elder, San Francisco, Court appointed counsel, for appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Robert R. Granucci, James A. Aiello, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Associate Justice.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a sharp instrument by a state prison inmate (Pen.Code, § 4502) and from the order denying his motion for a new trial. 1 He contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing to give his proffered instructions, indicating that he had obtained possession of the weapon under such threat and fear for his life that he could not have possession 'knowingly' as required by the statute, and by excluding evidence of threats made against his life.

As there are no contentions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, a summary of the pertinent facts, viewed most favorably to the judgment, will suffice. On January 20, 1968, defendant was an inmate at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville. On that date, Ray Lee Howard, a recently arrived black inmate of the institution, had a conversation with defendant about defendant's argument with another black inmate, one Jesse Hicks (hereafter Hicks), and was shown a knife by defendant. On the morning of January 24, 1968, sometime before 6:00 a.m., when Hicks and Daniel Mason, another black inmate, were having breakfast in the dining hall, defendant entered, walked up to their table, and told them to stop staring at him. Hicks told defendant to leave.

Defendant did so and Mason and Hicks proceeded to their work assignment in the laundry. Defendant, who was also assigned to work in the laundry, was already there when Hicks and Mason arrived. They asked defendant about the outbreak at breakfast, and one of them said: 'Better check yourself. You don't know who you are talking to.' During the ensuing altercation, defendant came up with a knife and made a rush at Mason. Mason avoided the fight. Defendant and Hicks engaged in a running battle through the laundry. Hicks was stabbed several times after having been chased by defendant. Thereafter, Mason ran from the laundry room to the kitchen, pursued by defendant. Mason hid in the kitchen behind the bread boxes and defendant came in with the knife. The civilian supervisor of the laundry at Vacaville witnessed the altercation, saw the knife in defendant's hand, the swipes at Hicks, and the pursuit of Mason.

As defendant ran down the hall with the knife in his hand, several correctional officers appeared on the scene and followed him. He was finally stopped when the officers encircled him and seized his arms from behind. Defendant dropped the knife, saying: 'I will go now, I will be all right.' Subsequently, defendant was taken to the custody office and searched. A scabbard was found in one of his rear trouser pockets. The scabbard, like the knife dropped by defendant, had a star and crescent insignia, the symbol of the Black Muslim organization that existed at the facility.

Defendant testified that Hicks, Mason and Howard had been threatening him for sometime before January 24. During the fight in the laundry room, a knife in a scabbard was thrown onto the floor by someone in a group of black inmates. Both defendant and Hicks dove for the scabbard and defendant came up with it and the knife. This aspect of defendant's testimony was corroborated by his witnesses, Mark Cox, Ivor Steepen and Dwight Abbott.

Defendant admitted that after Hicks was out of the way, he pursued Mason out of the laundry room and down the hall with the knife in his hand and that sometime before the particular incident, he had challenged Hicks and Mason to fight. At breakfast on the morning of the fight, defendant told Hicks and Mason not to stare at him any more and when they told him to get away from the table, he again asked them if they wanted to fight.

The cross-examination of defense witness Abbott was to resume the afternoon of the same day defendant testified but, during the noon break, defendant, Cox and another inmate severely beat Abbott. Accordingly, the following morning, the court and the jury convened for a special hearing at the medical facility. Abbott testified from a stretcher that he had requested an interview with the district attorney the afternoon of the previous day because the testimony that he had given the previous morning on direct examination concerning the knife tossed into the fight by a group of black inmates was a lie told under threat of physical harm. The truth was that defendant had the knife when the fight started and had brought it into the laundry room in his shoe. Abbott also recanted his earlier testimony that he did not see defendant stab Hicks, and stated that, in fact, he saw defendant stab Hicks during the fight in the laundry. When the trial reconvened in the courtroom, defendant retook the stand and stated that Abbott's testimony from the stretcher was a lie; that Abbott's direct testimony was the truth; that defendant had no idea why or how Abbott had been beaten.

Defendant first complains of the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that he obtained possession of the weapon under such threat and fear for his life that he could not have possession Knowingly, as required by Penal Code, section 4502. We note that at the trial, defendant couched his argument in terms of self-defense and framed some requested jury instructions in those terms. However, his closing brief on appeal concedes that in the context of the particular fact situation, the law of self-defense is not applicable and argues only on the basis of the instructions, quoted below, 2 relating to compulsion and coercion.

Defendant here was charged with a violation of Penal Code, section 4502, which provides, so far as pertinent: 'Every person confined in a State prison (who) * * * possesses or carries on his person (a) * * * sharp instrument' is guilty of a criminal offense. Proof of knowing possession of such an instrument by a state prison inmate is sufficient for conviction. Under the general rule, the prosecution is not required to prove the intent or purpose for which the instrument is so possessed (2 Witkin, Cal.Crimes, p. 730; People v. Wells, 68 Cal.App.2d 476, 482, 156 P.2d 979; People v. Marcus, 133 Cal.App.2d 579, 581, 284 P.2d 848). Section 4502 of the Penal Code serves an objective demanding relative inflexibility. Its objective is protection of inmates and prison officials against assaults by armed prisoners. It is one of the stringent statutes governing prison safety. Thus, a group of California decisions place section 4502 among the statutes whose violation does not depend upon proof of guilty intent, holding that its prohibition is absolute (People v. Wells, 261 Cal.App.2d 468, 478--479, 68 Cal.Rptr. 400; hearing denied by Supreme Court).

As we recently observed in People v. Steely, 266 Cal.App.2d 591 at page 595, 72 Cal.Rptr. 368 at page 371, where an argument similar to defendant's in the instant case was raised in relation to Penal Code, section...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • People v. Gayanich, A113729 (Cal. App. 4/27/2007)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 2007
    ... ... [Citation.] It must, however, prove that the defendant knew the prohibited object was in his possession." ( People v. Reynolds (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 776, 779; see also People v. Evans (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 877, 881.) Beyond merely the general intent to do the prohibited act, the crime requires proof of the defendant's "knowledge of actual or constructive possession" of the weapon while confined in state prison. ( People v. Strunk (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 265, 272; see also People ... ...
  • People v. Pinholster
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1992
    ...did not excuse defendant's conduct. (See People v. Parrish (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 336, 352, 217 Cal.Rptr. 700; People v. Evans (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 877, 882, 82 Cal.Rptr. 877; 1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (2d ed. 1988) Defenses, § 246, p. With respect to Deputy Sheriff Piggott's test......
  • People v. Bolton
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • February 2, 1979
    ... ... Appellant was clearly the aggressor in the evening's quarrel. He pointed his gun at Hollister at a time when Hollister made no immediate threat against him. When Hollister reached as for a gun, appellant as the aggressor was bound to retreat and not to stand his ground. (People v. Evans (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 877, 882, 82 Cal.Rptr ... 877; People v. Garcia (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 517, 523, 79 Cal.Rptr. 833.) However, instead of retreating, appellant fired his gun ...         Since appellant's theory of self-defense was insufficient as a matter of law, the [589 P.2d 400] ... ...
  • People v. Saavedra
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 29, 2007
    ... ... justified his seizing one of the prohibited weapons in order to protect himself." (People v. Crenshaw, supra, 74 Cal.App.2d at p. 30, 167 P.2d 781, italics added; People v. Evans (1969) 2 Cal. App.3d 877, 881-882, 82 Cal.Rptr. 877, disapproved on other grounds in People v. King (1978) 22 Cal.3d 12, 25, 148 Cal.Rptr. 409, 582 P.2d 1000; People v. Steely (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 591, 595-596, 72 Cal.Rptr. 368; People v. Purta (1968) 259 Cal. App.2d 71, 74, 66 Cal.Rptr. 38; ... ...
  • 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