People v. Davis
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 128
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Davis appeals after a jury convicted him of possessing a billy and displaying false vehicle registration, with acquittal on carrying a dirk or dagger.
- Trial court suspended sentence and placed Davis on three years of probation.
- Stop for unsafe lane change; registration allegedly expired, though truck had a current sticker; Davis claimed a knife was present.
- Bat found in backseat, with holes in the handle and a wrist strap; bat modified and painted; deputies believed it could be used as a weapon.
- Hernandez testified the bat could be a billy; defendant admitted ownership and stated it was kept for protection during repossessions.
- Prior 1996 conviction for possessing a billy club; officer testified the bat in this case would have been treated as a billy.
- Defense claimed the bat was for dog-play and that lightning bolts were a tool-marking style; defendant suggested innocence and non-nazi affiliations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the bat a billy under §12020(a)(1)? | Davis’s bat, with modifications, fits billy definition. | A baseball bat is not a billy; not inherently a weapon. | Yes, bat could be a billy under the statute. |
| Was CALCRIM No. 2500 correct without a billy definition? | Cal. courts allow circumstantial evidence; expert testimony supported billy. | Should have defined billy as short/small; invited error | Correct to instruct without extra billy definition. |
| Does 12020(a)(1) violate the Second Amendment as applied to possessing a billy? | Second Amendment protects bearable arms broadly; Davis’s bat is lawful outside home. | Billy not typically used for lawful purposes; bans constitutional. | No violation; billy not protected; statute constitutional as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Grubb, 63 Cal.2d 614 (Cal. 1965) (billy scope includes altered objects when used as weapons)
- People v. King, 38 Cal.4th 617 (Cal. 2006) (billy can include nonconventional items based on circumstance)
- People v. Mulherin, 140 Cal.App.2d 212 (Cal. App. 1934) (outlaw weapons ordinarily used for criminal purposes)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2008) (Second Amendment bears on possession of arms in common use)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2010) (Second Amendment applies to states; bear arms framework)
- People v. Ellison, 196 Cal.App.4th 1342 (Cal. App. 2011) (statute prohibitions may not impede self-defense where alternatives exist)
- People v. Deane, 259 Cal.App.2d 82 (Cal. App. 1968) (expert testimony admissible on defining prohibited objects)
- People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.3d 771 (Cal. 1991) (invited error rule for instructional definitions)
- People v. Hillhouse, 27 Cal.4th 469 (Cal. 2002) (clarifies invited error and instruction adequacy)