People v. Tien Duc Nguyen
212 Cal. App. 4th 1311
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Nguyen was caught assembling an AK-47 from a kit and was convicted of attempted unlawful assault weapon activity and attempted possession of an assault weapon; he appeals challenging the interpretation of the AWCA.
- Officers found an unmarked, unassembled AK parts box; Nguyen showed AK-Builder.com and claimed the receiver/parts could be legally possessed.
- Experts concluded the parts could assemble into a working AK-47 with a bent receiver; investigators halted assembly.
- Nguyen previously assembled a high-powered rifle and acknowledged knowing it was wrong to make and possess an AK-47; the case involved AK-47 parts and their fit within the AWCA.
- The court treated the AWCA provisions (12275–12280; 12276.1) and related statutes as controlling; defendant was convicted on two attempted counts and sentenced accordingly.
- The appellate court addressed whether possession of AK-47 parts can support attempted manufacture/possession under the AWCA and upheld the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unassembled AK-47 parts can violate AWCA as attempted possession/manufacture | Nguyen argues parts cannot be an AWCA offense unless assembled | State argues parts can constitute attempt because they enable completion | Convictions affirmed; parts support attempt under AWCA. |
| Whether the AWCA as applied was vague or violated due process | Statutes vague as applied to unassembled parts | Statutes provide fair warning | As applied challenge rejected; statute sufficient to guide conduct. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted manufacture and attempted possession | People show intent and steps toward completion | Defense disputes intent and knowledge about weapon characteristics | Evidence sufficient to support both attempted manufacture and attempted possession. |
| Admissibility and weighting of related firearm evidence | Evidence supported intent and knowledge about weapons | Evidence unduly prejudicial and prejudicial to defense | Trial court did not abuse discretion; any error was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jorge M., 23 Cal.4th 866 (Cal. 2000) (requires proving defendant knew weapon characteristics for AWCA violations; supports intent standard in this case)
- People v. Hagedorn, 127 Cal.App.4th 734 (Cal. App. 2005) (clarifies vagueness and fair warning standards for criminal statutes)
- People v. Foster, 50 Cal.4th 1301 (Cal. 2010) (admissibility of related conduct to prove intent under 352 balancing)
- People v. Breverman, 19 Cal.4th 142 (Cal. 1998) (harmless-error standard (Watson) for evidentiary mistakes)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (establishes standard for determining harm from error under Watson)