People v. Purta

• Citation: 66 Cal.Rptr. 38,259 Cal.App.2d 71
• Decision Date: 16 February 1968
• Docket Number: Cr. 6321
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronald Dwayne PURTA, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 38

66 Cal.Rptr. 38

259 Cal.App.2d 71

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronald Dwayne PURTA, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 6321.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

Feb. 16, 1968.

Hearing Denied April 10, 1968.

Steven D. Hallert, Walnut Creek, under appointment of the Court of Appeal, for appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Jerome C. Utz, John F. Henning, Jr., Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.

MOLINARI, Presiding Justice.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a sharp instrument while confined at a state prison. (Pen.Code, § 4502.) ¹ Defendant contends, first, that the court erred in excluding defendant's testimony as to the reasons for his possession of the instrument; and second, that the judge was so biased as to deny defendant his right to a fair ruling on the foregoing evidence. We conclude that neither contention has merit.

On October 30, 1966, defendant was an inmate of Soledad State Prison. On that day correctional officer Cole found defendant sitting at a card table with one Winkler and brought both inmates to the sally port area of the prison in order to search them. Correctional Sergeant Bowden told them to empty their pockets, whereupon defendant started backing off into a corner. Defendant had his hands in his pockets; Cole kept demanding that he submit to a search, and finally placed his hands on defendant's pocket the sharp instrument and handed it wrists. Defendant then took out of his to Cole.

Defendant admitted possession of the weapon and testified that it was thrown at him while he was returning from a movie. His counsel then made the following offer of proof, which the court rejected: On October 26 two inmates attempted to get defendant to commit sodomy, and one threatened him with a razor. They beat him up. Defendant told these facts to a lieutenant and asked to be put into protective custody. On the date of the instant offense, four or five inmates jumped defendant and then, while he was running away, threw the weapon at him. He picked it up and was going to bring it to the lieutenant, but got sidetracked talking to Winkler and was thus discovered with the weapon in his possession. The court refused to admit the foregoing testimony but did permit defendant to testify that the instrument had hit him in the back at he was outside the movie being pursued by other inmates.

In People v. Morales, 252 A.C.A. 581, 585, 60 Cal.Rptr. 671, we held that section 4502 is constitutionally definite and certain. (See also People v. Wells, 68 Cal.App.2d 476, 480--481, 156 P.2d 979, holding that the section is constitutional.) In Wells the appellate court noted that section 4502 was adopted to protect inmates and officers of state prisons from assaults, on the justifiable theory that there is great danger of imprisoned felons becoming incorrigible and resorting to violence if they are permitted to carry upon their persons deadly weapons. The court stated as follows: 'That section of the code absolutely prohibits all prisoners in any state prison, without qualification, from possessing or carrying on their person certain designated deadly weapons. The intention with which the weapon is carried on the person is not made an element of the offense. Proof of the possession of the prohibited weapon infers that it is carried in violation of the statute. (Citations.)' (Page 481, 156 P.2d page 981.) (See People v. Crenshaw, 74 Cal.App.2d 26, 29, 167 P.2d 781.)

In Crenshaw, a case involving a prosecution for possession of a sharp instrument by a prison inmate under section 4502, the trial court excluded testimony that the defendant had had a fight with one Easter, who threatened to kill him, and that he had possessed a sharpened file as a defense against the anticipated assault. The court on appeal held that excluding this testimony was not error, since self-defense is not a valid defense to a section 4502 prosecution and since in any case the defendant was not confronted with an emergency situation and could have sought protection from the prison authorities.

The reviewing court in Crenshaw noted that in Wells the trial court had admitted evidence tending to show that the defendant prisoner was in possession of a knife for the purpose of defending himself against an anticipated attack by another prisoner who had attacked him, but that there the admissibility of such evidence was not in question. A reading of Wells, moreover, discloses that the evidence was admitted over the objection of the prosecuting officer and that since the defendant had the full benefit of that theory of defense it was not necessary to determine whether such evidence was competent.

In Wells there is a suggestion that there may be a valid proper defense to the charge of violating section 4502 since the opinion states that a defendant 'has the burden of proving as a matter of defense, that he is not carrying the weapon in violation of the statute.' (68 Cal.App.2d page 481, 156 P.2d page 981.) It is difficult to reconcile this statement with the appellant court's holding that section 4502 'absolutely prohibits all prisoners in any state prison, without qualification, from possessing or carrying on their persons certain designated deadly weapons.' No case in this state moreover, has indicated the nature of a proper valid defense to the charge of violating section 4502, although in Crenshaw there is a suggestion that, while normally the right of self-defense is not recognized as a defense...