Court Opinion

ID: 9718661
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:29:19.068642+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:01.223457
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, J.
I concur in the result, but disagree with the majority’s holding that the prosecution must accept a defendant’s proffered stipulation that he is a felon when charged with a violation of Penal Code section 12021 (felon in possession of a firearm). In so holding the majority is departing from nearly 50 years of settled law. (See People v. Forrester (1931) 116 Cal.App. 240 [2 P.2d 558].) The most recent case reaffirming the contrary principle is People v. Morrison (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 425 [136 Cal.Rptr. 650], hearing denied by the Supreme Court, wherein the court stated (at pp. 427-428): “The existence of a prior felony conviction was an element of the offense charged in the firearms count. Thus, appellant could not, ‘by admitting the felony conviction out of the presence of the jury, preclude its introduction into evidence.’ [citations], where it was held that admission of a prior petty theft conviction on a charge of petty theft with a prior conviction of petty theft precludes proof of the prior *765conviction because, in that instance, the prior conviction is an augmentation of penalty and ‘is not an element of crime’ [212 Cal.App.2d at p. 855].) Here, a prior felony conviction was an element of the presently charged offense. Hence, the prosecutor was entitled to establish that fact before the jury.” No clearer expression of the rule or the reasons therefor need be made.
A petition for a rehearing was denied March 28, 1979. Scott, I, was of the opinion that the petition should be granted. Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied April 19, 1979. Clark, J., and Richardson, J., were of the opinion that the petition should.be granted.