From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Phillips

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division One
Aug 12, 1970
10 Cal.App.3d 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)

Opinion

Docket No. 3774.

August 12, 1970.

Appeal from Superior Court of Imperial County, Victor A. Gillespie, Judge.

COUNSEL

Henry Cleveland Phillips, in pro. per., and James H. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Diana C. Woodward, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


OPINION


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

(1) 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).

(2) 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).

(3) The crime is possessing a sawed-off shotgun, not requiring its criminal 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.


Summaries of

People v. Phillips

Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division One
Aug 12, 1970
10 Cal.App.3d 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)
Case details for

People v. Phillips

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HENRY CLEVELAND PHILLIPS…

Court:Court of Appeal of California, Fourth District, Division One

Date published: Aug 12, 1970

Citations

10 Cal.App.3d 488 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)
89 Cal. Rptr. 142

Citing Cases

People v. Campos

In this case, Detective Pinon and Officer Alford were, of course, entitled as eyewitnesses to describe what…