Court Opinion

ID: 9746222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:09:15.131707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:44.575715
License: Public Domain

WORK, Acting P. J.
I respectfully dissent. Although the majority recognizes the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt the ammunition taken from Khamphouy’s pockets was “live,” i.e. that it was presently capable of being detonated from a firearm, it accepts that element as being established in a case where the People made no attempt to present evidence on that point, and none exists. Instead, the majority makes assumptions which this record does not support. The majority’s conclusion founders on the shoals of the proposition stated in Marshall v. Parkes (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 650, 655 [5 Cal.Rptr. 657]:
“To support a finding, ‘the inference or inferences indulged in must be reasonable, must be based on the evidence, cannot be the result of mere guess, surmise or conjecture’ [citations], or ‘be based on imagination, speculation or supposition.’ ”
The majority relies on evidence that Khamphouy had .38-caliber cartridges in his pockets which were similar to others found in a .38 revolver which was retrieved beneath the car seat on which he was sitting. Officer McCracken described this gun as being “loaded” and stated he removed these cartridges and then described the gun as “safe.” In addition, the majority describes his actions as “carefully” collecting, separating and describing the types of ammunition found and distills from its characterization that there is a “reasonable inference based on solid evidence that the ammunition [taken from Khamphouy’s pockets] was live.” The majority queries “why else would the officers have so carefully dealt with the ammunition?”1
In response to the majority’s inquiry, at best, the officer’s comments regarding making the gun “safe” could infer he assumed the weapon may have contained “live” ammunition. However, that inference cannot support the additional inference accepted by the majority, that the officer’s unstated belief, if he in fact held it, is correct beyond reasonable doubt. The officer was neither asked nor testified this was in fact his belief, did not identity any factual basis to support such an inferred opinion, nor did the People attempt to establish he held such an opinion. However, as the majority assuredly would agree, an officer who seizes milk sugar from a purchaser after *1137observing a suspected drug sale is likely to assume the material is a controlled substance, especially if the purchaser attempts to evade arrest because of the same mistaken belief. However, in that hypothetical scenario, the officer’s assumption, reasonable though it may be, would not satisfy the requirement that the narcotic nature of the material seized be established chemically, and the purchaser’s evasive actions would not be evidence to satisfy that element.
Even more strained is the majority’s emphasis on the officer’s “carefully” collecting, separating and describing the types of ammunition found. The officer never stated he acted “carefully,” and the record at best only shows he performed these routine tasks so that the cartridges retrieved from various locations in separate baggies would be separated in individual lots to permit later identification showing where each group was found. For instance, bullets taken from the .357 magnum and the .38-caliber revolver were separated between exhibits 4 and 5, rounds located under the right front passenger seat of the car were placed in exhibit 8, loose rounds taken from Khamphouy’s pants pocket were placed in exhibit 6 and those from his jacket pocket in exhibit 7. The majority’s gratuitous characterization of this routine evidentiary chore as being “carefully” undertaken is pure speculation. Even if this characterization were accurate, it still fails to have any tendency to prove the officer performed these evidence preservation functions in a particular manner because he believed the ammunition in Khamphouy’s pockets was “live.”
Although it would have been a simple task to test fire one round or to visually examine at least one cartridge by removing the lead bullet from its casing to determine if it contained an explosive mixture, this was not done. The officers did not testify as to any expertise in distinguishing, through exterior examination, “live” ammunition from bullets which are not, did not proffer an opinion on that subject, and identified no features from which the court could judicially notice this ammunition was “live” through visual inspection. In sum, although the majority purports to recognize the prosecution has the burden establishing this element, it accepts it as proved without any evidence being presented on this point, inferring it from the fact Officer McCracken stated his removal of different cartridges of the same brand from a revolver made the gun “safe” and its imaginative characterization of the manner in which the evidence was catalogued.
Having stated the above, I am not unaware of the high probability that simple testing would show some, if not all, the ammunition taken from Khamphouy’s pockets contained an explosive propellant. It gives me no sense of satisfaction to contemplate that, because of the People’s failure to *1138anticipate its burden of proof or to ask to reopen its case once the failure to establish the element was raised once it rested its case, this minor might avoid the true finding on this count, even though it adds only four months to the maximum term of his juvenile confinement. Certainly, a visual examination of the contents of a cartridge could have occurred in the courtroom within a matter of minutes and its results likely would have provided evidentiary basis to support the requisite finding. However, even this minimal effort was not attempted when the issue was presented by defense counsel. As the authorities cited by the majority reflect, each element of this offense must be established beyond reasonable doubt by evidence, a burden not carried by the People in this case.

Although it alludes to the trial court’s observation that the ammunition looked live to it, the majority does not purport to give evidentiary weight to the trial court’s implied claim of expertise.