Court Opinion

ID: 9562368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:27:09.345826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:18.497054
License: Public Domain

WERDEGAR, J., Concurring.
I agree with the majority that a person may be armed in the commission of a continuing drug offense at any time during the offense, not only at the time of arrest or search. To the extent my opinion for the Court of Appeal in People v. Balbuena (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1136 *1007[14 Cal.Rptr.2d 640] appeared to suggest otherwise, the suggestion was inadvertent.
I also agree with the majority’s clear statement that imposition of an arming enhancement, at least for a firearm not carried on the person, requires proof of a facilitative link between the gun and the crime. Thus, as I understand the majority’s holding, a person who kept drugs or other contraband, such as stolen property, in his or her house and who, for unrelated purposes, also owned a firearm not situated so as to facilitate the possessory offense in any way, would not be subject to increased punishment under Penal Code section 12022. As the majority states: “[C]ontemporaneous possession of illegal drugs and a firearm will satisfy the statutory requirement of being ‘armed ... in the commission’ of felony drug possession only if the evidence shows a nexus or link between the firearm and the drugs.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1002.) Imposition of the arming enhancement requires proof, whether direct or circumstantial, that the firearm was kept in a place of “ready access” in order to facilitate commission of the possessory offense. (Id. at p. 1000.)
I find less clear the majority’s statement that “[e]vidence that a firearm is kept in close proximity to illegal drugs satisfies this ‘facilitative nexus’ requirement: a firearm’s presence near a drug cache gives rise to the inference that the person in possession of the drugs kept the weapon close at hand for ‘ready’ access to aid in the drug offense.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1002 (italics added).) If, by this, the majority means merely that proximity is circumstantial evidence that, together with all the other evidence, may in a given case justify the trier of fact in finding a facilitative link between a weapon and the crime committed, I would agree.
Expanding on its remark, however, the majority states, apparently as a rule of law, that from proximity of drugs and gun in a place “frequented” by the defendant, a jury “may reasonably infer” that the proximity “was not accidental or coincidental.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 1003.) This evidence, the majority declares, “if not refuted by defense evidence,” is sufficient to support a section 12022 enhancement. (Ibid.)
With these statements the majority appears to establish a rebuttable presumption that a gun kept “in close proximity to” drugs was intended for use in the criminal possession of the drugs and, hence, that the defendant was “armed” in the commission of the possessory offense. The majority’s assurance that no such presumption has been created (maj. opn., ante, at p. 1003, fn. 5) leaves me uncertain how the general rule of law announced today—that proximity is sufficient to show facilitation—is intended to operate.
*1008In my view this case does not call for us to set forth a general rule that proximity does, or does not, per se establish “arming.” The only question before us is whether the evidence here was sufficient to allow an inference this defendant was armed with an assault weapon in the commission of possession of cocaine base for sale. Our task is merely to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Tenner (1993) 6 Cal.4th 559, 567 [24 Cal.Rptr.2d 840, 862 P.2d 840].) I would affirm the arming finding in this case because all the circumstances— the place and manner in which the weapons were stored, the type and number of weapons, their proximity to the drugs—together allow a reasonable inference the assault weapon was kept in a place of ready access in order to facilitate possession of illegal drugs.
Appellant’s petition for a rehearing was denied September 21, 1995.