47 Cal.App.5th 1001
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Raymond Douglas May was convicted after a jury trial of possessing an assault weapon and a machine gun based on an AK‑47 found on a marijuana plantation where he and others guarded grow sites.
- An accomplice, Antonio Alanis‑Rodriguez, testified that May bunked with him, received an AK‑47 in the tent, and moved it to a truck the next morning; identifying information for both men was found in the tent.
- The seized AK‑47 had a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, detachable 30‑round magazine, and a three‑position selector switch; inspection showed it was modified to permit fully automatic fire.
- Experts testified it is common for marijuana grow‑site guards to be armed and that the rifle’s features were consistent with a prohibited assault weapon and a machine gun.
- May was placed on three years’ formal probation with a broad electronic search condition; on appeal he challenged (1) sufficiency/corroboration of accomplice testimony, (2) knowledge of the weapon’s illegal character for assault‑weapon liability, (3) instructional error about accomplice corroboration, and (4) the electronic search probation condition under Lent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (May) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/corroboration of accomplice testimony | Independent evidence (tent, belongings, expert custom testimony, weapon at assigned grow site) corroborated Alanis‑Rodriguez and connected May to the offense. | Accomplice’s testimony was uncorroborated; evidence showed only May’s presence near a truck registered to another person. | Corroboration sufficient; evidence tended to connect May to possession beyond mere presence. |
| Knowledge of illegal character (assault weapon) | Features observable on the rifle and the time May had it allowed a jury to conclude he knew or reasonably should have known it was an assault weapon. | May lacked knowledge the rifle was an illegal assault weapon. | Sufficient evidence supported conviction for possession of an assault weapon (jury could infer knowledge). |
| Mens rea for machine gun possession | Statute’s wording treats possession as a crime without a knowledge requirement (knowledge only referenced for transport); historic treatment supports strict liability. | Reliance on Staples and In re Jorge M. to argue mens rea should be required for possession of machine guns. | Possession of a machine gun is a strict liability offense under the statute as written; sufficient evidence supports conviction. |
| Electronic search probation condition (Lent) | People argued may have forfeited challenge; otherwise condition permissible. | Condition unrelated to May’s crimes, disproportionate intrusion, violates Lent and constitutional rights. | Electronic search condition stricken under Lent (In re Ricardo P.); probation otherwise affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (federal presumption that criminal statutes include a mens rea requirement unless clearly rebutted)
- In re Jorge M., 23 Cal.4th 866 (2000) (assault‑weapon possession requires knowledge or negligence regarding characteristics)
- People v. Daniels, 118 Cal.App.2d 340 (1953) (interpreting machine‑gun possession statute as strict liability)
- People v. Corkrean, 152 Cal.App.3d 35 (1984) (concluded machine‑gun possession is strict liability; statutory language distinguishes transport)
- In re Ricardo P., 7 Cal.5th 1113 (2019) (electronic‑search probation conditions invalid under Lent when record lacks nexus to future criminality)
- People v. Falconer, 201 Cal.App.3d 1540 (1988) (standards for required independent corroboration of accomplice testimony)