People v. Phillips

California Court of Appeal

People v. Phillips

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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Phillips. Read the opinion of the Court — 270 Cal. App. 2d 381 →

California Court of Appeal·Decided August 12, 1970·No. Crim. No. 3774·Published

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.

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

Pincite

10 Cal. App. 3d 488 (People v. Phillips) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related