Appellant also contends that there was no showing of possession of the weapon by the defendant, inasmuch as the fictitious check for the purchase of the gun was made out by Mrs. Hagquist and passed by Mrs. Ede. However, ownership or exclusive possession is not a necessary requisite to prove possession of an article ( People v. Felix, 58 Cal.App.2d 646 [ 137 P.2d 472]; People v. McKinney, 9 Cal.App.2d 523 [ 50 P.2d 827]; People v. Voss, 2 Cal.App.2d 188 [ 37 P.2d 846]). [8] It was the defendant's idea to purchase a shotgun and to convert it to a sawed-off weapon; he was present with the other two at the Bruno store and participated in the buying negotiations, including the selection of the gun from the rack; when it was taken to the hotel room it was converted into a sawed-off shotgun through his manipulation of a hacksaw, and it was afterwards placed in a suitcase containing his clothing. This proof was sufficient to hold him responsible. (See People v. Hamilton, 223 Cal.App.2d 542, 545 [ 35 Cal.Rptr. 812].)

We find no error in the above instructions. ( People v. Voss, 2 Cal.App.2d 188, 191 [ 37 P.2d 846]; People v. Ferguson, 129 Cal.App. 300 [ 18 P.2d 741]; People v. McKinney, 9 Cal.App.2d 523, 525 [ 50 P.2d 827]; People v. Patterson, 102 Cal.App.2d 675 [ 228 P.2d 51]; People v. Israel, 91 Cal.App.2d 773 [ 206 P.2d 62]; People v. Moore, 143 Cal.App.2d 333 [ 299 P.2d 691]; People v. Burch, 196 Cal.App.2d 754, 770-771 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 102].) Appellant next complains that the chief deputy district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct; this claim appears in its several specifications to be without substance.

In People v. Voss (1934), 2 Cal.App.2d 188, 189-190 [ 37 P.2d 846], the substantive offense, violation of section 2 of Act 1970, occurred in 1934. The prior offense occurred in 1926, violation of section 37 of the Criminal Code of the United States, conspiracy to violate section 141 of that code.