Court Opinion

ID: 9747017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:52:52.741405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:19.423082
License: Public Domain

WOODS (Fred), J.,
Concurring and Dissenting. — I entirely concur with the analysis and conclusion of the majority that possession of a destructive device with the intent only to harm oneself or one’s own property is not a violation of Penal Code section 12303.3. I further concur that the trial court’s failure to so instruct the jury was prejudicial and requires a reversal of the section 12303.3 conviction. But the reversal should be conditional, not absolute, as ordered by the majority.
By finding appellant guilty of possessing a destructive device with the intent to injure, intimidate or terrify any person (Pen. Code, § 12303.3) the jury necessarily found him guilty of the lesser included offense of possessing a destructive device. (Pen. Code, § 12303; see People v. Morse (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 620, 648 [3 Cal.Rptr.2d 343].) The instructional error, prejudicial to the section 12303.3 charge, did not affect the lesser included section 12303 offense.
Therefore the judgment should be conditionally reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to either set the matter for retrial or, if the district attorney so elects, to reinstate the conviction of Penal Code section 12303 and conduct a probation and sentence hearing on that conviction. (People v. Jaramillo (1976) 16 Cal.3d 752, 760 [129 Cal.Rptr. 306, 548 P.2d 706]; People v. Riederer (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 829, 837 [266 Cal.Rptr. 355].)
A petition for a rehearing was denied February 16, 1995. Woods, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied May 18, 1995. Baxter, J., George, J., and Werdegar, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.