Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County No. MCR030709. A. Dennis Caeton and Eric C. Wyatt, Judges.
Retired judge of the Fresno County Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Judge Caeton presided over defendant’s trial; Judge Wyatt presided over pretrial hearings and imposed sentence.
Patricia J. Ulibarri, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Jamie A. Scheidegger, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Kane, J.
Defendant Patsy Ruth Mitchell argued with her 85-year-old mother, Wille Mae, in Willie Mae’s home. Due to defendant’s behavior after police officers arrived, she was convicted of drawing or exhibiting a deadly weapon with the intent to resist or prevent arrest by a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 417.8; count 1) and willfully and unlawfully resisting, delaying or obstructing a peace officer in the performance of his or her duties (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2). Defendant was sentenced to two years in state prison on count 1. On appeal, she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support both counts. Specifically, she contends there was insufficient evidence (1) that the officers were lawfully engaged in the performance of their duties when she resisted them, (2) that the sheathed knife she held was a deadly weapon, and (3) that she drew or exhibited the weapon. We will affirm.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
Defendant raises but withdraws a fourth contention, which we do not address.
FACTS
On the afternoon of January 21, 2008, Willie Mae called her son, Alfred. Willie Mae and defendant had been arguing and Willie Mae asked Alfred to help. Alfred went to Willie Mae’s house (as he did every day) and found his mother very nervous and scared. Defendant had taken a bath and was coming out of the bathroom. Alfred asked her what was going on and “[e]verything broke loose.” Defendant “was screaming and hollering and cussing” at Alfred. He spent about 35 minutes trying to calm her down and get her to leave the house, but he could not.
Alfred was concerned for Willie Mae because she had just got a pacemaker, so he called his other sister, Betty, who shared the house with Willie Mae. Alfred told Betty that defendant refused to leave and said she did not have to leave. Betty told Alfred he could call the police and have defendant removed from the house.
After Alfred called the police, he told defendant, who was still wearing only a towel, that police officers were coming and she needed to get dressed and leave.
Officers Arnold and Chavez, both in uniform, were dispatched to Willie Mae’s house to investigate an argument between Willie Mae and defendant. The officers were informed that defendant was extremely upset. When the officers arrived, they spoke to Willie Mae and Alfred outside the house. Willie Mae was very upset and worried. She kept clenching her chest and breathing hard. Alfred stayed by her and seemed concerned for her. Chavez offered to call an ambulance for Willie Mae, but she refused medical care.
Willie Mae told the officers that she wanted defendant to leave. Both Willie Mae and Alfred (speaking on her behalf) had told defendant to leave, but she refused. Alfred explained to the officers that Willie Mae wanted defendant removed from the house because defendant was upsetting her and she had just had a pacemaker put in a few days earlier. Alfred told the officers that the house was Willie Mae’s. He did not say that defendant paid rent. Willie Mae and Alfred were in agreement that defendant needed to leave. Alfred also mentioned that he had spoken to Betty and she told him he could ask the police to remove defendant.
After speaking to Willie Mae and Alfred, the officers went into the house to talk to defendant. Arnold approached the back bedroom and stood at the threshold as Chavez stood behind him. The bedroom was well lit and Arnold saw defendant standing next to the bed. She was wearing pants or shorts, but she was naked from the waist up. Surprised, Arnold turned his head away and told defendant to “please get dressed because [they] needed to talk to her out in the living room.” Defendant was extremely angry and she refused to comply. She was upset with her family and she was upset that the officers were there. She was very frustrated and she was cursing at the officers. Arnold repeated his instructions to her several times over the course of a few minutes. Defendant remained extremely upset. There were things laid out on the bed, including a purse, and defendant was moving everything around. She was yelling that everyone was against her and there was a conspiracy against her. She said she was not going to go into the living room with the officers. Chavez was nervous because the officers did not have control of the situation yet. Defendant was cursing and yelling at them, and she was grabbing things and moving around the room quickly. Chavez was concerned that she could grab a weapon. The situation was made more awkward by defendant’s state of undress; the officers could not immediately “go in there and stop her from flaring her hands and grabbing things, moving around.” When she suddenly put her shirt on, both officers moved into the doorway. Arnold continued to ask her to go into the living room with them so they could talk, but she would not listen. Arnold asked her numerous times, “Hey, come out to the living room and let’s discuss this.”
At that point, Arnold, who was now about eight feet from defendant, noticed a black leather knife sheath on the bed. He could not determine whether a knife was inside the sheath, but he wanted to separate defendant from it by either moving it or getting defendant out of the room. When Arnold took a step toward defendant, she lunged at the bed and grabbed the sheath. She said in a very loud and angry voice, “I ain’t going nowhere.” At this point, Arnold was only about two feet from defendant. She held the sheath near her waist or armpit and pointed it at the officers. As she backed away from them, she continued to tell them she would not go with them. Arnold was very concerned because he still did not know whether the sheath contained a knife. Defendant’s movements caused him to worry that she was getting ready to stab them.
Chavez was able see the metal hilt of a knife, which no longer had its standard handle. Chavez thought there was going to be a fight and he thought he was going to be stabbed. Defendant’s movements were consistent with someone ready to strike with a knife, and Chavez was afraid that the knife would cause him serious or deadly injury. If he had not been so close to defendant, he would have pulled his gun. Instead, he grabbed defendant’s arm and placed her in a bent wrist control hold, pulling her wrist behind her back. As he did, she dropped the knife and doubled over the bed. Chavez attempted to handcuff her, but she continued to struggle and resist. After about 20 seconds, the two officers managed to handcuff her.
The officers escorted defendant out in handcuffs while she was “cussing everybody out.”
Arnold testified that defendant never attempted to remove the knife from the sheath. But based on his training and experience, he stated that the knife, although sheathed and missing its full handle, could be used to severely injure someone. The knife was dangerous even in the sheath because the sheath was thin and the knife could go through the sheath and also because the sheathed knife simply could be used as a hard object. Arnold demonstrated how defendant gripped the sheathed knife. He stated, then demonstrated, that the knife, gripped in that manner, could be removed from the sheath quickly. The knife could be used to attack someone effectively, even without its standard handle. Chavez agreed that the knife could be removed from the sheath quickly.
Arnold testified it was police policy to remove a very upset person from a potentially dangerous setting where the person might have access to a weapon, and move the person to a neutral, weapon-free setting to safely discuss the situation. Officers are always concerned that a person might have a weapon and they immediately attempt to create a safe situation. Defendant was so upset that Arnold knew it would take time to calm her and therefore they needed to talk in a neutral place where she did not have access to weapons.
Similarly, Chavez testified that on domestic calls officers are never certain of what has actually happened, so their first concern is to create a safe situation by checking for weapons and perhaps placing the person on a sofa that also has been checked for weapons. Then they try to talk and get the details of what has occurred. Often it is merely a family argument and the officers make no arrests.
Chavez summarized the information they received in this case as follows: “The details we had [were], ‘Hey, this woman is in our house. It’s my daughter, but I want her out.’ That’s the information that we had.” Chavez testified that they were investigating a possible trespassing.
Chavez explained that in trespassing cases, they first talk to the person who called the police, attempting to determine whether the alleged trespasser has the legal right to be there or not. If the person does not have a right to be there, and the person continues to refuse to leave, then the officers have no choice but to arrest the person.
In this case, the officers were unable to question defendant and determine her side of the story because they were never able to create a safe situation in which to interview her. Her behavior was not normal. She was very upset and agitated.
The prosecutor introduced evidence of the following statements made at defendant’s arraignment hearing:
“THE DEFENDANT: Well, Your Honor, all I was doing was taking a bath and my brother came over and he started harassing me. [¶] … [¶]
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: There’s no reason to talk about your case right now.
“THE DEFENDANT: We got into an argument and he ordered me out of the house. It wasn’t even his. My personal belongings was on the bed. The officers came in and when they came in the room I didn’t even have any clothes on. They stood there and wouldn’t even allow me to put my clothes on without them moving. [¶] He approached me and I bent to pick up my—my—I carry a knife because I’m being threatened.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Ma’am, ma’am.
“THE DEFENDANT: I picked up the knife
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Don’t talk.
“THE DEFENDANT: —picked up the knife.”
At the close of the prosecution’s case-in-chief, defendant unsuccessfully moved for judgment of acquittal pursuant to section 1118.1.
Defense Evidence
Defendant testified that she lived in Willie Mae’s house because Willie Mae and Betty had offered her a job taking care of Willie Mae. The arrangement was that defendant would keep the house clean. Although she did not pay rent, she shared her food with the others. Willie Mae and Betty paid the rent. Defendant’s name was not on any rental agreement.
Defendant said that Alfred told her she had to leave the house, but she did not believe he had any authority to do so. When he told her to leave, Willie Mae did not say anything. Neither Willie Mae nor Betty told her to leave. Defendant explained that she and Willie Mae had argued about defendant’s making too much noise and slamming cabinets. They always argued. Defendant did not know why Alfred asked her to leave; he told her she was causing problems, but she did not see how. She and Willie Mae “had words” and Alfred “came in and took over.”
DISCUSSION
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
“‘To determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, an appellate court reviews the entire record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether it contains evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value, from which a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’” (People v. Bolden (2002) 29 Cal.4th 515, 553.) We must draw all reasonable inferences in support of the judgment. (People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 640.) It is not our function to reweigh the evidence, reappraise the credibility of witnesses, or reconsider factual conflicts, as these are functions reserved for the trier of fact. We look for substantial evidence, and we may not reverse a conviction for insufficiency of the evidence unless it appears that upon no hypothesis whatever is there sufficient substantial evidence to support the conviction. (People v. Bolin (1998) 18 Cal.4th 297, 331.)
We note that appellate review following the denial of a section 1118.1 motion requires examination of evidence on the record up to the time of the motion to determine if the evidence was legally sufficient at that point to sustain a verdict of guilty. (People v. Trevino (1985) 39 Cal.3d 667, 695 [section 1118.1 motion; where motion is made at the close of prosecution’s case-in-chief, reviewing court tests sufficiency of the evidence “as it stood at that point”; discussing the policies underlying that rule of law], overruled on other grounds in People v. Johnson (1989) 47 Cal.3d 1194; People v. Ringo (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 870, 880 [section 1118 motion; “reviewing court must view the evidence as it stood at the end of the prosecution case”]; People v. Smith (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1458, 1464 [section 1118.1 motion; reviewing court considers only the evidence in the record at the close of the prosecution’s case].)
II. Lawfully Engaged in Performance of Duties
Defendant contends the officers were unlawfully detaining her when she resisted them and therefore they were not lawfully engaged in the performance of their duties.
Under section 148, subdivision (a)(1), the prosecution is required to prove (1) the defendant willfully resisted, delayed or obstructed a peace officer, (2) when the officer was lawfully engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and (3) the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the other person was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties. (Yount v. City of Sacramento (2008) 43 Cal.4th 885, 894-895; People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 673 [when a statute makes it a crime to commit any act against a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, part of the corpus delicti of the offense is that the officer was acting lawfully at the time the offense was committed]; see People v. Curtis (1969) 70 Cal.2d 347, 354-356, abrogated on another point by People v. Gonzalez (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1179, 1222; see also CALCRIM No. 2670.)
A detention is lawful only if the detaining officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity. (Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 123; In re Manuel G. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 805, 821; see CALCRIM No. 2670.) Here, Willie Mae and Alfred spoke to the officers outside the house and told them the house was Willie Mae’s, Willie Mae wanted defendant removed from the house, and defendant would not leave. The officers were not informed of any facts suggesting that defendant had the right to remain in the house. In other words, the officers had reason to suspect that defendant remained in the house without the consent of the lawful possessor of the property and was therefore trespassing on the property. (§ 602.5, subds. (a), (b) [person who remains in residence without consent of the person in lawful possession of property is trespassing]; see CALCRIM No. 2932.) As Chavez testified, the officers believed they were investigating a possible trespassing.
Thus, assuming the officers detained defendant in the bedroom when they asked her to get dressed and come into the living room, the detention was lawful. Sufficient evidence supported the finding that the officers were lawfully engaged in their duties during the encounter with defendant.
II. Deadly Weapon
Defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to prove that the knife she used was a deadly weapon because it was sheathed.
A violation of section 417.8 requires proof that the defendant “dr[ew] or exhibit[ed] any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or other deadly weapon, with the intent to resist or prevent … arrest or detention … by a peace officer ….” (Italics added.) It is well-settled that a knife can be a deadly weapon: “Nearly all knives have sharp edges and points which are designed to cut things, and knives can be—and all too often are—employed to cut—and kill—people. Jurors can certainly employ common sense and experience to determine whether or not such a knife is a ‘deadly’ instrument.” (People v. Pruett (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 77, 86.) Here, Chavez testified that he thought defendant was going to cause him serious or deadly injury with the knife. Arnold testified that the sheathed knife could be used to cause severe injury, both as a knife and as a hard object. Finally, both Chavez and Arnold stated that the knife could be removed from its sheath quickly. This was ample and solid evidence from which the jurors, who were also able to examine the knife, could have concluded the knife was likely or capable of causing death.
IV. Drew or Exhibited Weapon
Lastly, defendant contends there was insufficient evidence that she drew or exhibited the knife because she never withdrew it from the sheath.
As used in section 417.8, “exhibit” is not a technical term. A standard dictionary defines it as “to present to view” and “to show or display outwardly.” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dict. (1999 10th ed.) p. 406.) The trial court provided another dictionary definition for the jurors: “to show or display; to offer or present for inspection.” The evidence in this case established that defendant presented, showed and displayed the knife to the officers. Indeed, she held it near her waist or armpit and pointed it at the officers. Her movements suggested she was ready to strike. Substantial evidence also supports this element.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J.