The People v. Pellecer
155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 477
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- At 2:30 a.m. police found Pellecer leaning on a backpack in Barnsdall Park and approached him.
- An officer opened the backpack and found a nylon pouch with three shuriken-like knives; knives had rings and lanyards.
- The knives were analyzed as shuriken and considered capable of throwing or stabbing; witnesses described their typical uses.
- Defendant stated knives in backpack were used as digging tools; he had prior knife possession arrest history.
- Jury convicted Pellecer of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger on his person under former §12020(a)(4); defendant received probation condition and jail time.
- The trial court and parties relied on the statutory phrasing requiring carrying “upon his or her person.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a dirk or dagger inside a backpack count as carrying on person? | People urged that ‘carrying’ includes any container carried by the person. | Pellecer argued the knives were not on the person since they were inside a backpack. | No; knives inside a backpack are not carried upon the person. |
| Is the jury instruction defining ‘on his person’ correct or ambiguous? | The instruction properly defined ‘on his person’ to include a carried container. | The instruction should reflect that ‘upon his person’ excludes carried containers like backpacks. | The instruction was reconciled with the court’s construction; nonetheless reversal on the sufficiency issue resolved the case. |
| Whether statutory language and history support a view that ‘upon his person’ excludes carried containers? | Plain language and history support broad interpretation that covers all carrying on or about the person. | The statute should be interpreted to include containers carried by a person as being ‘upon the person.’ | The court held that ‘upon his or her person’ does not include carried containers; it must be on the body or in clothing. |
| Is there substantial evidence supporting the conviction given the backpack evidence? | The knives were concealed and could be argued as carried on person. | The elements require being on the person, not inside a backpack. | No substantial evidence; conviction reversed for insufficiency. |
| Should Pellecer be retried? | N/A | N/A | The conviction is reversed; Pellecer may not be retried. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Albillar, 51 Cal.4th 47 (Cal. 2010) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent guiding construction)
- People v. Rodriguez, 55 Cal.4th 1125 (Cal. 2012) (words and context to determine legislative intent)
- People v. Jenkins, 10 Cal.4th 234 (Cal. 1995) (harmonizing statutory elements with legislative framework)
- Dunn, 61 Cal.App.3d Supp. 12 (Cal. App. Div. 1976) (rejected reliance on unrelated jurisdiction for intent)
- Pugach, 15 N.Y.2d 65 (N.Y. 1964) (frisk/search related to ‘concealed upon his person’ context)
- Kozlowski, 96 Cal.App.4th 853 (Cal. App. 2002) (courts cannot enlarge a statute beyond its plain meaning)