Opinion ID: 2632308
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of defendant's possession of weapons

Text: Factor (b) of section 190.3 permits the introduction of evidence of [t]he presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant which involved the use or attempted use of force or violence or the express or implied threat to use force or violence. The prosecution presented evidence that on November 27, 1987, defendant was arrested in Texas for possession of a double-edged dagger with a seven-inch blade and a butcher knife with an eight-inch blade, both of which were illegal under Texas law. On January 23, 1988, he was arrested in California for illegal possession of knives. Finally on August 31, 1988, the day after defendant's robbery of Fuller at Camp Pendleton, defendant was found in a parking lot with a concealed handgun in the glove box. None of these events involved the actual or attempted use of force, or an express threat to use force. The issue here is whether the evidence is admissible as proof of an implied threat. In a series of cases beginning with People v. Harris (1981) 28 Cal.3d 935, 962-963, 171 Cal.Rptr. 679, 623 P.2d 240, and continuing through People v. Ramirez (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1158, 1186, 270 Cal.Rptr. 286, 791 P.2d 965, People v. Tuilaepa (1992) 4 Cal.4th 569, 589, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142, and People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 238, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 123, 940 P.2d 710, we have held that the possession of a weapon in a custodial settingwhere possession of any weapon is illegalinvolve[s] an implied threat of violence even when there is no evidence defendant used or displayed it in a provocative or threatening manner. ( People v. Tuilaepa, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 589, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 382, 842 P.2d 1142; People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1260, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 920 P.2d 1254 (cone. opn. of Baxter, J.).) Three cases discuss implied threats under section 190.3, factor (b) in a noncustodial setting. In People v. Belmontes (1988) 45 Cal.3d 744, 248 Cal.Rptr. 126, 755 P.2d 310, the prosecution presented evidence that the defendant had slapped his side indicating that he had a handgun in his waistband, while stating that he had `all the protection he needed.' (Id. at p. 809, 248 Cal.Rptr. 126, 755 P.2d 310.) We held that it was error to admit this evidence: Although such [conduct] is arguably an `express or implied threat to use force or violence' (§ 190.3), it was not directed at a particular victim or victims, and did not amount to criminal conduct in violation of a penal statute. (Ibid.) Defendant here relies on Belmontes to support his contention that the challenged evidence was improperly admitted, but Belmontes turned on the fact that the conduct there was not criminal. By contrast, here in each instance defendant's possession was illegal. His possession of knives in Texas was illegal, both because the blades exceeded five inches and because the dagger was doubleedged. His possession of knives and a firearm in California were concealed, making the possession illegal under California law. (§ 12020, subd. (a).) Two other cases have found an implied threat in a noncustodial context. In People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 676, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564, 828 P.2d 705, the defendant carried a knife while committing a burglary, but did not use it. The court held that his action was an implied threat to use the knife against anyone who might interfere. (Id. at p. 677, 7 Cal.Rptr.2d 564, 828 P.2d 705.) In People v. Garceau (1993) 6 Cal.4th 140, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664, 862 P.2d 664, a search of the residence of the defendant, an ex-felon, turned up a machine gun, a silencer, and concealable handguns. The defendant's possession of these firearms was illegal. We held that the evidence was properly admitted. (Id. at pp. 203-204, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 664, 862 P.2d 664.) Defendant's possession similarly shows an implied intention to put the weapons to unlawful use. On two occasions the weapons defendant possessed were knives with seven-to-eight-inch blades; in People v. Ramirez, supra, 50 Cal.3d at pages 1186-1187, 270 Cal.Rptr. 286, 791 P.2d 965, we said that such an implement is a `classic instrument ] of violence' [citation] that is `normally used only for criminal purposes.' Indeed JoAnn Clemons was killed with a similar knife. The concealed firearm found on defendant was the same gun he had used to rob Chad Fuller the previous day. We conclude that the criminal character of defendant's possession of knives and firearms, and the evidence of defendant's use of those or similar weapons to commit crimes, is sufficient to permit a jury to view his possession as an implied threat of violence. Defendant, of course, was free to and did present evidence to the jury to show that his possession was for the purpose of self-protection, or the protection of someone else, not for criminal violence. ( People v. Ramirez, supra, 50 Cal.3d at p. 1187, 270 Cal.Rptr. 286, 791 P.2d 965.)