People v. Mejia
Decision Date | 11 June 1999 |
Docket Number | No. G022388,G022388 |
Citation | 72 Cal.App.4th 1269,85 Cal.Rptr.2d 690 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4675, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5951 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Rene MEJIA, Defendant and Appellant. |
O P I N I O N
Rene Mejia appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm within a "school zone." (Pen.Code, § 626.9; all further statutory references are to the Penal Code.) He claims the trial court misinstructed the jury on what constitutes possession within a school zone. (§ 626.9, subd. (e)(1).) We conclude the court's instructions were correct and affirm the judgment of conviction.
Police officers observed defendant's stopped vehicle facing the wrong direction on Western between Wisteria and Highland. The center of Western demarcates a 1000-foot perimeter surrounding the Monte Vista School.
The officers initiated a traffic stop. Defendant, the driver and sole occupant of the car, did not yield, but jumped out of his moving vehicle and fled. He was apprehended a short distance away from the car. During the pursuit, an officer saw a shiny metal object in his hand. He retraced defendant's steps and located a .380 caliber handgun.
At trial, defense and prosecution experts testified extensively about various measurements of the area surrounding Monte Vista School. Despite the differences in their testimony, defendant concedes at least part of his car was within 1,000 feet of a school at the time the officers first saw him.
During deliberations, the court received the following question from the jury: The court responded that it did not matter where within the car defendant or the gun were located, as long as the jury determined at least part of the car was within the 1000-foot perimeter. We conclude the trial court's response to the jury's question was correct.
Former section 626.9 prohibited, with certain exceptions, gun possession on school grounds. In 1994, the Legislature enacted the "Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995" to expand the scope of section 626.9 to include gun possession within a "school zone." (Stats.1994, ch. 1015.) A school zone is defined by the statute as "an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school ... and within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school." (§ 626.9, subd. (e)(1).)
Defendant argues the trial court's response constitutes an erroneous interpretation of section 626.9 because the term "within" should be interpreted to require actual physical possession of a gun wholly within 1,000 feet of a school. (People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145, 151, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 77, 906 P.2d 1232, internal quotation marks omitted.) Further, the words must be (Torres v. Automobile Club of So. California (1997) 15 Cal.4th 771, 777, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 937 P.2d 290.)
The term "within" generally connotes something inside, or contained in the inner portion. (See Webster's Internat. Dict. (3rd ed.1981) p. 2627.) Thus, under the plain meaning of the language, section 626.9 prohibits gun possession 1,000 feet or less from school property. However, reading the language in context and consistent with the Legislative intent, the facts before us are sufficient to find defendant violated the statute.
First, a car partially within the school zone is a car wholly within the school zone for purposes of the statute. It is a situation analogous to officers discovering a suspect straddling the 1,000 foot perimeter line. Just as one may not sever a portion of his or her body to escape prosecution, defendant may not sever his car into parts and declare half outside the school zone. Under this common sense application of the statutory language, even the circumstantial evidence presented here is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Further, defendant fails to acknowledge the two types of possession applicable under law. One may have either actual or constructive possession of any article. The latter is established by showing a knowing exercise of dominion and control over an item. (People v. Rogers (1971) 5 Cal.3d 129, 134, 95 Cal.Rptr. 601, 486 P.2d 129; People v. Showers (1968) 68 Cal.2d 639, 644, 68 Cal.Rptr. 459, 440 P.2d 939.) As the driver and sole occupant of the car, and the only person seen carrying a gun from the scene, defendant had possession of the gun in his car. We presume the Legislature intended prosecution under the statute for both types of possession since no contrary intention is apparent. (See Torres v. Automobile Club of So. California, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 779, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 859, 937 P.2d 290.) The trial court correctly told the jury to determine if the evidence supported a finding that a portion of defendant's car was within 1,000 feet of the school and he possessed a gun.
The judgment is affirmed.
Our Supreme Court says this about the subject at hand (except when it is saying the opposite 1): (People v. Fuhrman (1997) 16 Cal.4th 930, 937, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 941 P.2d 1189; Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 921, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 309, 911 P.2d 496.)
The statute we deal with here proscribes possession of a firearm "in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone...." (Pen.Code, § 626.9, subd. (b).) The statute defines a school zone as the area "within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of [a] public or private school." (Pen.Code, § 626.9, subd. (e)(1).) Whatever the wisdom of this legislation -- and there is some evidence it was "inadvertently passed" 2 -- the language is clear enough: Thou shalt not be within 1,000 feet of a school with a firearm. The statute has nothing pertinent here to say about cars, but the jury somehow got distracted by this aspect of the facts.
When the jurors demonstrated their confusion with a question concerning the location of the stopped car containing defendant and the gun, the judge should have plainly told them the location of the car was beside the point. They were to determine whether defendant or the gun was within 1,000 feet of the school, i.e., that either the gun or the defendant could be outside the line, but not both.
The majority analyzes this as a substantial evidence case, but it is not of course. The problem facing us is whether the jury's question concerning the car was properly answered, not whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold a conviction on appeal. Out with the substantial evidence bath water goes this howling baby: Would Mejia's jurors have convicted given a correct response to the question they posed? God may know; my colleagues cannot.
To the extent the statute is perceived as ambiguous -- and it is not at all to me on the application before the house today -- we should not deal in the sophistry of Pieters (see fn. 1). To the contrary, we ought to resist the temptation to apply a poorly drafted statute to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Tapia
...property. Prior to its amendment in 1994, section 626.9 prohibited firearm possession on school grounds. (People v. Mejia (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1271-1272, 85 Cal. Rptr.2d 690.) In 1994, the Legislature expanded the scope of the statute to prohibit firearm possession, not only on schoo......
-
Katz v. Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union
...with the legislative objective of protecting the coast, "in the coastal zone" means partly within]; People v. Mejia, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at p. 1272, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 690 [consistent with legislative intent underlying criminal statute, in the school zone means partly Under our construction, ......
-
Jones v. Moss
...on a defendant's constructive possession of a firearm. (See People v. Sifuentes (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1417 ; People v. Mejia (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1272 [defendant need not physically have the weapon on his person; constructive possession of a firearm 'is established by showing ......
-
People v. Rios
...a shared residence]; People v. Pena (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1080-1081 [firearm found in tool box in truck bed]; People v. Mejia (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1269, 1271-1272 [the defendant was the driver and sole occupant of his vehicle, and was the only one seen fleeing the vehicle with the fi......