Return to Non-CALJIC Offenses – Contents
F 18.24 n1 Bringing Explosives Or Weapons In Jail: Applicable To Ammunition (PC 4574).
(See People v. Grayson (2000) 83 CA4th 479, 485-87 [99 CR2d 701, 705] [evidence supported conviction for bringing explosive into jail where defendant secreted clip of ammo in her vagina].)
Possession Of Deadly Weapon In Jail
Defendant is accused in the information of having violated PC 4574(a), a crime.
Every person who, while lawfully confined in a jail possesses therein a deadly weapon is guilty of the crime of violation of PC 4574(a).
In order to prove such a crime, each of the following elements must be proved:
(i) a person possessed a weapon;
(ii) the weapon was a deadly weapon;
(iii) without authorization;
(iv) while lawfully committed to county jail.
Possession requires that a person knowingly exercised direct control over a thing.
A deadly weapon means any weapon, instrument or object that is likely to inflict great bodily injury or death.
Points and Authorities
This instruction was given in People v. Savedra (93) 15 CA4th 738, 743-44 [19 CR2d 115]. The defendant did not fault this instruction and the Court of Appeal expressed no disagreement with it. The Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s argument that CJ 12.42 should be given in addition to the above instruction, noting that the first 4 factors of CJ 12.42 are not applicable to PC 4574(a) and the 5th factor is included in the last paragraph of the above instruction.
The definition of possession in the above instruction comes from CJ 1.24.
Failure to adequately instruct the jury upon matters relating to proof of any element of the charge and/or the prosecution’s burden of proof thereon violates the defendant’s state (Art. I, § 15 and § 16) and federal (6th and 14th Amendments) constitutional rights to trial by jury and due process. [See generally, FORECITE PG VII(C).]
In Savedra, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the term “likely” means having potential for use as a deadly weapon. (15 CA4th at 744; see also People v. Martinez (98) 67 CA4th 905 [79 CR2d 334] [court properly defined deadly weapon in terms of “reasonable potential” rather than “reasonable likelihood”].)