Opinion
G037297
5-2-2007
In re JULIO S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JULIO S., Defendant and Appellant.
Brent F. Romney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown and Bill Lockyer, Attorney Generals, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jeffery J. Koch, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Julio S. argues, as a matter of law, an unmodified screwdriver does not qualify as a dirk or dagger under Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)(4). We disagree and affirm the juvenile courts judgment.
FACTS
On October 6, 2004, Julio S. admitted he committed a residential burglary and petty theft, two charges contained in a juvenile court petition. He was declared a ward of the juvenile court, ordered to serve 60 days of commitment, and was placed on probation.
On April 30, 2006, two gang detectives, patrolling an area of Buena Park, conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle containing Julio and four other young males. One detective recognized Julio because that detective had interviewed him the previous night in connection with an investigation of a stabbing. The detective patted Julio down and discovered a Phillips-head screwdriver in his right front pant pocket. The screwdriver was described as being unmodified and approximately seven inches in length. When asked why a screwdriver was found in his pocket, Julio first answered that he used it to work on the cars radio. Later, Julio admitted he carried the screwdriver for protection as he was fearful the same gang that stabbed his friend the night before would attack him.
The defense called a plumbing superintendent to testify to the manner in which construction workers carry tools. The witness testified that construction workers often wear a tool belt in which one or more of the tools are concealed. The defense also entered into evidence pictures of a nail clipper with a fold-out blade, a cuticle scissor, a pen, and an emery board to which the parties stipulated "are weapons which can be readily used as stabbing implements."
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Julio concedes an unmodified screwdriver falls within the definition of a "dirk or dagger" as provided by section 12020, subdivision (c)(24), but contends the statutes language and the Supreme Courts holding in People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322 leads to "absurd consequences" as it criminalizes the innocent carrying of otherwise legal instruments. As the California Supreme Court has squarely addressed the issue raised on appeal, we must affirm.
Section 12020, subdivision (a)(4) prohibits the carrying of a concealed dirk or dagger. Although subject to several legislative amendments since the statutes enactment, the current definition of a dirk or dagger is "a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death." (§ 12020, subd. (c)(24).)
In People v. Rubalcava, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 328, the Supreme Court held section 12020, subdivision (a)(4) is a general intent crime, Thus, the government is not required to show an intent to use the instrument as a stabbing weapon for conviction under the statute. In holding section 12020, subdivision (a)(4) is not a specific intent crime, the Court held the statutes violation required only the knowing and intentional carrying of a concealed instrument "that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon." (Id. at p. 332.) After an examination of the legislative history surrounding the amendments to the definition of "dirk or dagger" found in section 12020, subdivision (c)(24), the Court expressly stated, "the Legislature recognized that the new definition may criminalize the `innocent carrying of legal instruments such as steak knives, scissors and metal knitting needles, but concluded `there is no need to carry such items concealed in public. [Citation]." (Id. at p. 330.) The Court rejected the defendants contention that section 12020, subdivision (a)(4), read in conjunction with the definition of "dirk or dagger" under subdivision (c)(24), was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. (Id. at p. 332.) "The mere fact that a statute may criminalize previously legal conduct does not . . . make a statute unconstitutionally vague especially where, as here, the statutory language and legislative history indicate the Legislature intended such a result" and "[e]ven though section 12020 may seem overbroad as a matter of common sense, we will not find it unconstitutionally overbroad without some concrete impairment of constitutionally protected conduct." (Id. at pp. 332-333, original italics.)
Although section 12020 may criminalize the innocent carrying of items such as a pen, nail file, or screwdriver, arguments raised by both Rubalcava and Julio, the Court stated "the statute may invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement not due to any vagueness in the statutory language but due to the wide range of otherwise innocent conduct it proscribes." (People v. Rubalcava, supra, 23 Cal.4th 322, 333 [original italics].) However, "`[t]he role of the judiciary is not to rewrite legislation to satisfy the courts, rather than the Legislatures, sense of balance and order. [Citation]." (Ibid.) We, like the Supreme Court, "must therefore leave it to the Legislature to reconsider the wisdom of its statutory enactments." (Ibid.)
Bound by the decisions of the Legislature and the Supreme Court, we are not free to read an additional requirement into section 12020, subdivision (a)(4), to avoid "absurd consequences," as Julio now suggests. Rubalcava makes it clear the statute can, and does, criminalize the innocent but concealed carrying of an otherwise legal instrument "capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon." However wise this Court believes that may be is irrelevant. As found by the juvenile court and not questioned on appeal, Julio knowingly had the screwdriver concealed in his pants pocket and a screwdriver can be a stabbing instrument.
DISPOSITION
The judgment of the juvenile court is affirmed.
We concur:
RYLAARSDAM, J.
IKOLA, J. --------------- Notes: All further section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.