Opinion ID: 2625366
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Defendant's Possession of a Shank

Text: Defendant next argues his constitutional rights were violated by admitting, pursuant to section 190.3, factor (b), evidence that he possessed a shank in his jail cell. The record shows that an inspection of defendant's cell revealed a shank or sharpened piece of metal concealed inside the mattress cover on defendant's bed. Defendant unsuccessfully objected to the admission of this evidence on the ground that possessing a shank did not amount to prior criminal activity involving an implied threat of force or violence. (See ibid. ) He renews his argument here. Defendant acknowledges that we have often held that possession of weapons while incarcerated satisfies the statutory requirement of an implied threat. (E.g., People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 1002-1003, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171, and cases cited; People v. Ramirez (1990) 50 Cal.3d 1158, 1186-1187, 270 Cal.Rptr. 286, 791 P.2d 965.) But he asks that we reconsider our decisions, arguing that no `implied threat' can exist unless the defendant has committed an act or spoken words directed at an individual or group of persons who can infer that the defendant has made a threat. In other words, the term `implied threat' necessarily connotes some form of communication .... The argument is meritless, for section 190.3, factor (b), by its terms applies to either express or implied threats, and a communicated threat would constitute an express one. As we have held, mere possession of a potentially dangerous weapon in custody `involves an implied threat of violence even where there is no evidence defendant used or displayed it in a provocative or threatening manner.' [Citation.] ( Smithey, supra, at p. 1002, 86 Cal.Rptr.2d 243, 978 P.2d 1171, quoting from an earlier case.) Defendant also doubts the reliability of the evidence regarding his possession of the shank. He observes that no direct evidence was admitted that he made the shank, put it in his mattress cover, or ever used it. But the record did show that for the six preceding months, defendant was the sole occupant of the cell, that jail staff frequently inspected for contraband such as shanks, and that such inspections routinely included mattresses and their covers. The shank had been placed in the four-inch-thick mattress cover near its top, and thus located beneath defendant's head as he reclined. We think such circumstantial evidence was sufficient to demonstrate defendant's possession.