People v. Phillips

California Court of Appeal

People v. Phillips

10 Cal. App. 3d 488, 89 Cal. Rptr. 142, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1858

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedAugust 12, 1970

DocketCrim. No. 3774

StatusPublished

This text of 10 Cal. App. 3d 488 (People v. Phillips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Phillips, 10 Cal. App. 3d 488, 89 Cal. Rptr. 142, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1858 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Henry C. Phillips possessed a sawed-off shotgun, and was convicted for violating Penal Code, section 12020.

After the gun was taken from Phillips in a cafe tussle the cafe cook, Mildred Malone, asked Phillips why he had come to the cafe with a gun. He answered some people had tried to rob him that night. This answer was admissible as an admission he intended to exercise dominion and control over the weapon (Evid. Code, § 1220).

Testimony Phillips appeared to be reaching for the shotgun’s trigger was properly admitted as factual and within the witness’ personal knowledge (Evid. Code, § 702).

The crime is possessing a sawed-off shotgun, not requiring its [490]*490criminal use (People v. Stinson, 8 Cal.App.3d 497, 501 [87 Cal.Rptr. 537]; People v. Wasley, 245 Cal.App.2d 383, 385, 386 [53 Cal.Rptr. 877]).

Judgment affirmed.

Coughlin, J., and Whelan, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 9, 1970.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Henry C. Phillips possessed a sawed-off shotgun, and was convicted for violating Penal Code, section 12020.

After the gun was taken from Phillips in a cafe tussle the cafe cook, Mildred Malone, asked Phillips why he had come to the cafe with a gun. He answered some people had tried to rob him that night. This answer was admissible as an admission he intended to exercise dominion and control over the weapon (Evid. Code, § 1220).

Testimony Phillips appeared to be reaching for the shotgun’s trigger was properly admitted as factual and within the witness’ personal knowledge (Evid. Code, § 702).

The crime is possessing a sawed-off shotgun, not requiring its [490]*490criminal use (People v. Stinson, 8 Cal.App.3d 497, 501 [87 Cal.Rptr. 537]; People v. Wasley, 245 Cal.App.2d 383, 385, 386 [53 Cal.Rptr. 877]).

Judgment affirmed.

Coughlin, J., and Whelan, J., concurred.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied October 9, 1970.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 Cal. App. 3d 488, 89 Cal. Rptr. 142, 1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-phillips-calctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack