People v. La Grande, LA-GRAND
| Decision Date | 23 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 19402,LA-GRAND,D |
| Citation | 98 Cal.App.3d 871,159 Cal.Rptr. 709 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Theodis J.efendant and Respondent. |
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Edward P. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., Gloria F. DeHart, Laurence K. Sullivan, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and appellant.
Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, Peter R. Silten, Richard S. Kessler, Deputy State Public Defenders, San Francisco, for defendant and respondent (by appointment of the Court of Appeal).
The People appeal from dismissal of the information after the granting of respondent's motion made pursuant to Penal Code section 995. The issue is whether an awl is not a dirk or a dagger as a matter of law.
Respondent was charged with a violation of Penal Code section 12020, carrying a dirk or a dagger concealed upon his person. Respondent was arrested after being discovered asleep or unconscious on a bus bench. Preparatory to transporting respondent to jail, the officers pat searched him and discovered an awl in his pants waistband. An awl is a pointed instrument for marking surfaces or piercing small holes, as in leather or wood. The awl in the instant case is about 71/2 inches long, has a sharp point, and is slightly curved; it had not been altered.
The People contend that the awl is fitted and designed primarily for stabbing, and that whether it is a dirk or a dagger when concealed upon a person should be a question for the trier of fact.
We have recently held, however, that an unaltered tool or instrument other than a knife, designed not as a weapon but only as a cutting tool, which is neither fitted primarily nor designed primarily for stabbing, is not a dirk or a dagger as a matter of law. (Bills v. Superior Court (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 855, 150 Cal.Rptr. 582 (barber scissors).)
The People attempt to distinguish Bills in that, unlike Bills, the instrument here is not a cutting instrument. They contend that an awl is designed expressly to stab, and whether the manufacturer designed it to stab people is insignificant. The "fitted primarily for stabbing" language of Bills, however, finds its source in People v. Forrest (1967) 67 Cal.2d 478, 62 Cal.Rptr. 766, 432 P.2d 374. The Forrest court describes dirks and daggers as weapons designed primarily for stabbing, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mowatt
...construction and common sense mandate that an unaltered pair of barber scissors is not a 'dirk or dagger' "]; People v. La-Grande (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 871, 873, 159 Cal.Rptr. 709 ["an unaltered awl is not a dirk or a dagger as a matter of law"]; People v. Barrios, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p.......
-
People v. Johnson
... ... order to encompass the broader array of homemade weapons ... inmates are likely to create. ( People v. La Grande ... (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 871, 873 ( La Grande ).) That our ... Legislature added a descriptive "catch-all" ... category (that is, ... ...
-
People v. Barrios
...dagger. In Bills v. Superior Court (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 855, 150 Cal.Rptr. 582 (unaltered barber scissors), and People v. La Grande (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 871, 159 Cal.Rptr. 709, (leather or wood awl seven and one-half inches long with a sharp point), the First District limited application of......
-
People v. Wharton
...for stabbing is not a dirk or dagger as a matter of law. (Id. at pp. 860-861, 150 Cal.Rptr. 582; see also People v. LaGrande (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 871, 873, 159 Cal.Rptr. 709.) Other cases, however, have found items such as ice picks and pointed pieces of metal to be dirks or daggers where t......