Quintus W., In re, Cr. 38633
Decision Date | 18 June 1981 |
Docket Number | Cr. 38633 |
Citation | 175 Cal.Rptr. 30,120 Cal.App.3d 640 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re QUINTUS W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. QUINTUS W., a Minor, Defendant and Appellant. |
Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Ernest Martinez, Deputy State Public Defender, for defendant and appellant.
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Shunji Asari and William R. Pounders, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Quintas Alfred W. appeals from a juvenile order of wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) upon a finding that he was guilty of carrying upon his person a dirk or dagger in violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a), a misdemeanor. The court ordered that appellant may not be held in physical confinement for a period to exceed one year and that he was to be placed on home probation in his mother's home. He appeals, contending (1) that the kitchen knife found on his person was not a "dirk or dagger" within the meaning of Penal Code section 12020; (2) that his extrajudicial statements regarding his intended use of the kitchen knife were immaterial and should have been excluded; (3) that his extrajudicial statements were improperly admitted since the corpus of the crime was not independently proven; and (4) that the minute orders must be modified to reflect that the court found the offense to be a misdemeanor.
At approximately 3:30 p. m., on May 5, 1980, Officer Voge saw appellant writing on the wall of a building and stopped his police car. Appellant looked in the officer's direction, then began to walk away. Voge told appellant to stop and place his hands behind his neck. (It was stipulated that the officer had probable cause to detain appellant and reasonable cause to conduct a search.) During a patdown search, the officer recovered from appellant's right rear pocket a white handled steak knife with a blade 45/8 inches long. As the knife was taken from him, he said,
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that "the unaltered kitchen knife" was a "dirk or dagger" within the meaning of Penal Code section 12020.
Although the code does not define "dirk or dagger," the courts have provided a general definition which has been consistently followed. In Bills v. Superior Court, 86 Cal.App.3d 855, 859, 150 Cal.Rptr. 582, the court noted: "
As appellant correctly points out, not every knife is "a dirk or dagger." However, that determination is a question for the trier of fact to determine. (People v. Bain, 5 Cal.3d 839, 851, 97 Cal.Rptr. 684, 489 P.2d 564.)
In his argument, appellant incorrectly seizes upon and emphasizes that portion of the definition which states: "They may consist of any weapon fitted primarily for stabbing;" converts the permissive word "may" into the mandatory word "shall;" magnifies the use of the word "primarily" and asserts that the "logical and reasonable test" of a dirk or dagger must be "whether it is a weapon designed primarily for stabbing."
The prevailing definition, relevant to knives, is that a dagger is any straight knife to be worn on the person which is capable of inflicting death, except the pocketknife. (See People v. Bain, supra; People v. Shah, 91 Cal.App.2d 716, 720, 205 P.2d 1081 ( ); People v. Ruiz, 88 Cal.App. 502, 504, 263 P. 836 ( )). Bain involved a folding knife with a pointed five-inch-long blade with dull beveled sides that could be locked into position when opened manually. Because the knife could be folded, and because a pocket knife is not a dirk or dagger, the court held it to be a close question of fact whether the knife was a dirk or dagger. In People v. Ferguson, 7 Cal.App.3d 13, 86 Cal.Rptr. 383, the court held that an ordinary kitchen butcher knife, having a wooden handle and an eight-inch blade, had the characteristics of "a stabbing and cutting weapon," and thus, the determination of whether it was a dirk or dagger was properly left for the jury to determine. The court in People v. Villagren, 106 Cal.App.3d 720, 165 Cal.Rptr. 470, also held that the jury properly found that a "hunting knife" with a 43/8th inch-long relatively straight blade was a dirk or dagger.
In In re Robert L., 112 Cal.App.3d 401, 404, 169 Cal.Rptr. 354, the court, in concluding that the trial court was justified in its determination that an ice pick fell within the statutory proscription, relied upon principles set forth in People v. Grubb, 63 Cal.2d 614, 47 Cal.Rptr. 772, 408 P.2d 100, wherein it was observed that (Id. at pp. 620-621, 47 Cal.Rptr. 772, 408 P.2d 100.)
In contrast, in People v. Forrest, 67 Cal.2d 478, 62 Cal.Rptr. 766, 432 P.2d 374, it was held that an oversized two-bladed pocketknife was not a dirk or dagger as a matter of law because the blades did not lock into place, thus severely limiting its effectiveness as a stabbing instrument. And in Bills v. Superior Court, supra, 86 Cal.App.3d 855, 150 Cal.Rptr. 582, the court concluded that a pair of unaltered barber scissors could not be a dirk or dagger because "scissors are never designed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Belloso, B290968
...blade that was rigid, sharpened on both sides, and had a sharp point was dirk or dagger]; In re Quintus W. (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 640, 642, 645, 175 Cal.Rptr. 30 ( Quintus W. ) [steak knife with four-and-five-eighths-inch blade was dirk or dagger]; People v. Ferguson (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 13, ......
-
People v. Aubrey
...a question of fact for the jury (People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 850-851, 97 Cal.Rptr. 684, 489 P.2d 564; In re Quintus W. (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 640, 643, 175 Cal.Rptr. 30; cf. People v. Pruett (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 77, 84, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 750 [while a knife is not an inherently dangerou......
-
People v. Ramirez
...to use force or violence. The concealed possession of the type of "dirk" or "dagger" involved here (see In re Quintus W. (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 640, 643-645, 175 Cal.Rptr. 30) is prohibited precisely because such an implement is a "classic instrument[ ] of violence" (People v. Grubb (1965) 6......
-
People v. Rubalcava
...reach the opposite conclusion. (See, e.g., In re Victor B. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 521, 527, 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 362; In re Quintus W. (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 640, 645, 175 Cal.Rptr. 30; In re Robert L. (1980) 112 Cal.App.3d 401, 404-405, 169 Cal.Rptr. 354; People v. Ferguson (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 13,......