Opinion
B165256.
10-15-2003
In re MARK C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARK C., Defendant and Appellant.
Murray A. Rosenberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Joseph P. Lee and Zee Rodriguez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Mark C. appeals from the juvenile courts order continuing wardship (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) and committing him to the California Youth Authority (CYA) after findings he unlawfully possessed a short-barreled shotgun and a concealable firearm. (Pen. Code, §§ 12020, subd. (a); 12101, subd. (a)(1).) Mark C. contends the evidence is insufficient that he possessed the weapon. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prosecution Evidence
Baldwin Park Police Officer Steven Molina testified that, while on routine patrol with his partner Mark Adams in the early evening of October 18, 2002, he saw Jose T. walking through the courtyard of an apartment complex. Jose T. saw the officers, stopped, removed what appeared to be a sawed-off shotgun from his waistband and then began to run away from the officers. Molina and Adams left their patrol car and gave chase. Molina ordered Jose T. to stop several times.
Shortly after Jose T. began to run, he was joined by Mark C., who ran along with him. Molina saw Jose T. pause long enough to place the shotgun under a bush. Mark C. and Jose T. were ultimately detained by the officers near the apartment complex. Molina recovered the shotgun from the bush.
As the officers walked the minors to the patrol car, Mark C. said, "Dont arrest [Jose T.]. Its my shotgun." Jose T., however, told the officers what they saw was a stick he had been holding, not a shotgun, and said he dropped the stick in a bush next to the one Molina had searched. Molina searched the second bush and did not find a stick.
Defense Evidence
Officer Adams testified and corroborated Molinas testimony.
Jose T. testified that, before he saw Molina, he was walking to the front of the apartment complex alone to wait. He had come there with his "home boy" [Mark C.] "to pick up the home girl." At the time, Jose T. had a two-foot long stick, rather than a gun, in his possession. He ran from the officers because he did not want to "get busted for [violating] curfew again." Mark C. came from "some home girls house" and began running in front of him. Jose T. explained he put the stick in the bush so he could run better. He did not know why he failed to drop the stick earlier.
Mark C. did not testify in his own defense.
The Juvenile Courts Findings and Order
The juvenile court sustained the petition after finding Jose Ts claim that he possessed a stick rather than a shotgun not credible. The court determined Jose T.s demeanor and false testimony implicated Mark C., who, the court found, was the owner of the shotgun and jointly possessed it with Jose T. The court noted the two minors knew each other, were at the apartment complex together before officers arrived, and fled together with the shotgun that Molina subsequently recovered. Mark C. was ordered committed to the CYA for a theoretical maximum period of confinement of three years, eight months.[]
Mark C. had two prior sustained petitions for making a criminal threat and vandalism. Following his second adjudication the juvenile court ordered Mark C. placed in a camp-community program with a theoretical confinement period not to exceed one year, four months.
CONTENTIONS
Mark C. contends the evidence fails to show he had dominion or control over the shotgun sufficient to corroborate his extrajudicial statement of ownership and thus the evidence was insufficient to support the finding he possessed the shotgun in violation of Penal Code sections 12020, subdivision (a), and 12101, subdivision (a)(1).
DISCUSSION
The same standard of appellate review is applicable in considering the sufficiency of the evidence in a juvenile proceeding as in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction. (In re Cheri T. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1404; In re Jose R. (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 269, 275.) In either type of case, we review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence — that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value — from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206; People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314.) That standard is the same in cases where the People rely primarily on circumstantial evidence. (People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 792.)
To establish violations of Penal Code sections 12020, subdivision (a), and 12101, subdivision (a)(1), in this case, the People had to prove Mark C. had constructive possession of the shotgun — that is, that the weapon, although not in his immediate possession, was nonetheless under his dominion or control either directly or through others. (People v. Pe&ntil;a (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1078, 1083-1084; People v. Rogers (1971) 5 Cal.3d 129, 134 [constructive possession is demonstrated when the defendant maintains some control or the right to control the contraband in anothers actual possession].) Two or more individuals may jointly possess a single weapon. (People v. Hunt (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 224, 227.)
Mark C. admitted ownership of the weapon, which implied the right to possess it. (See People v. McKinney (1935) 9 Cal.App.2d 523, 524.) The independent evidence necessary to corroborate his admission may be circumstantial and need not prove the facts beyond a reasonable doubt; it is sufficient if it permits an inference of criminal conduct, even if a noncriminal explanation is also plausible. (People v. Alvarez (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1161, 1181.) Untruthful statements regarding incriminating circumstances constitute evidence that may support an inference of guilt. (People v. Showers (1968) 68 Cal.2d 639, 643.) In this case, as the juvenile court found, Jose T.s false testimony not only supported the finding of his actual possession of the shotgun but also strongly suggested Mark C.s right to control of the weapon. The court was entitled to conclude that Jose T.s efforts to cast doubt on Officer Molinas testimony and to disassociate himself and Mark C. from the shotgun were obviously fabricated. From this clumsy attempt to manufacture a defense, the court could reasonably infer the guilty knowledge necessary to find the two minors jointly possessed the weapon.
Additional evidence the court properly considered was the minors conduct before and after the offense, as well as flight. (See, e.g., In re Lynette G. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094.) Mark C. and Jose T. were companions who went together to the apartment complex to visit a friend. Jose T. was standing outside, concealing a shotgun in his waistband, waiting for Mark C. when the officers arrived. Immediately after Jose T. was seen carrying the shotgun, Mark C. joined him as they both attempted to evade the pursuing officers. The court was entitled to conclude Mark C., as well as Jose T., feared being caught with the shotgun. (In re Jose R., supra, 137 Cal.App.3d at pp. 277-278 [consciousness of guilt may be inferred from a suspects flight].) The juvenile courts finding of constructive possession is supported by substantial evidence.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile courts order is affirmed.
We concur: WOODS, J. MU&Ntil;OZ (AURELIO), J.