Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/5/72.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:03:21+00:00

Document:
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD MILTON WHARTON III, Defendant and Appellant.
Peter Brixie, E. Katherine Dashiell and Mark E. Cutler under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Edmund D. McMurray, Jane L. Lamborn and Leslie B. Fleming, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant was charged with carrying a dirk or dagger concealed upon his person ( Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a); hereafter all undesignated sections references are to the Penal Code) and it was alleged he served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). A jury convicted defendant of the section 12020 offense, and the trial court found true the prior prison term allegation. Defendant was placed on three years' probation and ordered to serve sixty days in the county jail as a condition of probation.
On appeal, defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction and that the court erred in instructing the jury. He also contends [5 Cal. App. 4th 75] he is entitled to two days of conduct credit. Defendant's latter contention has merit. We shall modify the judgment accordingly but affirm in all other respects.
On December 16, 1988, Butte County Deputy Sheriff Rubinhoff was dispatched to a particular alleyway in Oroville to investigate a landlord-tenant dispute. As he drove into the alleyway, he saw a car that was traveling toward him stop suddenly. The vehicle then "peeled" backward at a "high rate of speed." Deputy Rubinhoff pursued the car, which was driven by defendant.
After defendant stopped his car and got out, Deputy Rubinhoff asked him for identification. As defendant was getting his wallet, the deputy noticed the tip of a silver-colored object in defendant's left rear pants pocket. Because he thought the object could be a knife, Deputy Rubinhoff conducted a patdown search which disclosed that defendant had a knife with a double- edged blade in his pocket. According to Deputy Rubinhoff, defendant stated, "That is my dagger knife," and defendant's companion Neva Kennedy stated defendant carried the knife for protection.
Section 12020, subdivision (a) provides in pertinent part: "Any person in this state ... who carries concealed upon his or her person any dirk or dagger, is guilty of a felony, ..."
[2a] Defendant also contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction because the knife in the present case is not a dirk or dagger as a matter of law. The knife has a rigid, sharp-pointed blade, which is approximately three and one-half inches long and sharpened on both sides. The blade is attached to a handle that does not have a handguard to prevent the hand of the user from slipping onto the blade if the weapon is used for stabbing. Relying primarily on In re Conrad V. (1986) 176 Cal. App. 3d 775 [222 Cal. Rptr. 552], defendant contends the absence of a handguard precludes a finding that the knife is a dirk or dagger.
In In re Conrad V., supra, the court found that a weapon that was similar to a push dagger (see Peterson, American Knives: The First History and Collectors' Guide (1958) p. 64) was not a dirk or dagger as a matter of law because it did not have a handguard and because its blade was only one and one-half inches long and sharpened on one side. (176 Cal.App.3d at p. 778; but see People v. Pettway (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 1067 [285 Cal. Rptr. 147].) In support of its holding that dirks or daggers must have handguards, the court in In re Conrad V. relied on two Supreme Court opinions, People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 839 [97 Cal. Rptr. 684, 489 P.2d 564] and People v. Forrest (1967) 67 Cal. 2d 478 [62 Cal. Rptr. 766, 432 P.2d 374]. In those cases, however, the Supreme Court was concerned with whether a folding knife could be a dagger and did not address directly whether dirks and daggers must have handguards.
In People v. Bain, supra, 5 Cal. 3d 839, the Supreme Court concluded that it was a question of fact for the jury to determine whether a folding knife with a blade that locks in place and a handle with a handguard was a dirk or dagger. (Id. at pp. 851-852.) Although both Forrest and Bain mention that the knives in question had handguards, neither case held that the presence of handguards was a prerequisite to finding that a knife is a dirk or dagger, but [5 Cal. App. 4th 77] rather that the existence of a handguard is evidence that the knife was designed for stabbing.
The defendant's contention the court erred in refusing his request that the jury be instructed that a dirk or dagger must have a handguard to prevent the hand of the user from slipping onto the blade if the weapon is used for stabbing is clearly without merit in view of part I of this opinion. Not all dirks and daggers have handguards. Hence, the court did not err in refusing to so instruct the jury.
The judgment is modified to give defendant credit for two days of conduct credit. The trial court is directed to amend the order granting probation [5 Cal. App. 4th 80] accordingly and to forward a corrected copy thereof to the Department of Corrections. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. Blease, Acting P. J., and Sims, J., concurred.
FN *. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 976.1, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part III of the Discussion.
FN 3. For example in Bills v. Superior Court (1978) 86 Cal. App. 3d 855 [150 Cal. Rptr. 582], the court held that an unaltered tool or instrument other than a knife designed not as a weapon but only as a cutting tool, which is not fitted or designed primarily for stabbing is not a dirk or dagger as a matter of law. (Id. at pp. 860- 861; 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 the possessors of these items intended to use them as weapons or where the items could be used for one purpose only-to stab. (In re Robert L. (1980) 112 Cal. App. 3d 401, 404 [169 Cal. Rptr. 354]; People v. Cabral (1975) 51 Cal. App. 3d 707, 711-712 [124 Cal. Rptr. 418].) We need not resolve this conflict concerning whether nonknives may be dirks or daggers as the present case involves a knife. It is hoped the Legislature will examine these problem areas and produce a clear definition of a dagger and dirk.
FN *. See footnote, ante, page 72.

References: v. 
 § 12020
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.