Opinion
D051558
6-24-2008
In re MAX M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MAX M., Defendant and Appellant.
Not to be Published
The juvenile court entered a true finding that Max M. possessed a knife on school grounds, a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, §§ 626.10, subd. (a), 17, subd. (b)(4)). It adjudged him a ward and placed him on probation. Max appeals, contending the People failed to prove he knowingly and intentionally possessed the knife, so the true finding is not supported by substantial evidence and he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment rights. The People properly concede the court committed reversible error by failing to require proof Max knowingly possessed the knife.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On May 17, 2006, Max went to school with a Leatherman tool in his backpack. The Leatherman was a multifunction tool that included pliers and a knife. Max used the pliers to fix his skateboard. He had forgotten the Leatherman was in his backpack and did not know the knife was illegal.
Defense counsel asked the court to dismiss the case because the People had not proven Max knew he was in possession of the knife. The prosecutor argued section 626.10 did not require Max to know the knife was in his backpack. The court rejected defense counsels argument, stating, "Counsel, without any further law to support your position that knowingly is a requirement of a statute, it is not supported by the law." The court concluded "that the [P]eople have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that [Max] had a knife on campus on the date in question."
While section 626.10 does not expressly set forth a knowledge requirement, similarly structured statutes have been interpreted to include the requirement. (See e.g., People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322, 331-332 [§ 12020, subd. (a)—carrying a concealed dirk or dagger]; People v. Mendoza (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 835, 843 [§ 653k—possessing a switchblade knife].) Because there was no evidence Max knowingly possessed the knife, the true finding must be reversed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
AARON, J. --------------- Notes: All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.