People v. Marcus
| Decision Date | 23 September 1953 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2403 |
| Citation | 260 P.2d 1051,120 Cal.App.2d 347 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. MARCUS. |
Joseph G. Babick, Sacramento, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Doris H. Maier, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for respondent.
This is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to the verdict of the jury finding him guilty of violation of section 4502 of the Penal Code in that on the date specified, while a prisoner at Folsom State Prison, he had in his possession a knife, contrary to the provisions of said statute. His motion for a new trial was denied and he now appeals from that order as well as the judgment.
His sole contention on appeal is that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence for the reason that by his acknowledged possession of the knife he was seeking to accomplish the very object and purpose of said code section. In this he relies upon statements taken from context such as 'The statute was passed to protect the guards and other inmates of the prison', People v. Scherbing, 93 Cal.App.2d 736, 742, 209 P.2d 796, 800, and that the section was passed 'to protect inmates and officers of state prisons from the peril of assaults with dangerous, weapons perpetrated by armed prisoners.' People v. Wells, 68 Cal.App.2d 476, 156 P.2d 979, 981. See also People v. Harris, 98 Cal.App.2d 662, 666, 220 P.2d 812.
His testimony in explanation of his possession of the knife was simply that he had received it from one Henderson in order to prevent serious trouble between Henderson and one Joe Perez and that pursuant to his urging Henderson surrendered the knife to him.
In view of what this court said in People v. Wells, 68 Cal.App.2d 476, 156 P.2d 979, it would seem unnecessary for us to discuss at length the argument made by defendant concerning his good intentions in arming himself with a knife. In discussing the code section in question we said, 68 Cal.App.2d at page 481, 156 P.2d at page 981:
(Citing cases.)
Furthermore, we said, 68 Cal.App.2d at page 482, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wells
...weapon; that his purpose of arming himself for self-defense against an anticipated assault is no defense. (People v. Marcus (1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 347, 348, 260 P.2d 1051; People v. Crenshaw (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d 26, 30, 167 P.2d 781; People v. Wells, supra, 68 Cal.App.2d at p. 482, 156 P.2d ......
-
People v. Steely, Cr. 6640
...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, 120 Cal.App.2d 347, 348, 260 P.2d 1050; People v. Marcus, 133 Cal.App.2d 579, 581, 284 P.2d Lack of Guilty Intent Appellant's principal contention on appeal a......
-
People v. Marcus
...on the person is not made an element of the offense.' People v. Wells, 68 Cal.App.2d 476, 481, 156 P.2d 979, 981; People v. Marcus, 120 Cal.App.2d 347, 348, 260 P.2d 1051. There was no need of proof of evil motivation. Appellant's admission that he possessed a sharp knife or instrument whil......
-
People v. Jennings, Cr. 2466
...979. See, also, People v. Patterson, 102 Cal.App.2d 675, 228 P.2d 51; People v. Gory, 28 Cal.2d 450, 170 P.2d 433, and People v. Marcus, 120 Cal.App.2d 347, 260 P.2d 1051. As to the second point raised, towit, the prejudice appellant contends he suffered through the joining of the second co......