Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIF126524, Eric G. Helgesen, Judge. Retired judge of the Mun. Ct. for the Central Dist. of Tulare, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.
Eric Weaver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, and James D. Dutton and Michael T. Murphy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
RICHLI Acting P.J.
A jury found defendant guilty of unlawful possession of a shuriken (throwing star) (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)) and not guilty of unlawful possession of a billy club (§ 12020, subd. (a)(1)). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true that defendant had suffered a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) and two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)). As a result, defendant was sentenced to a total term of 25 years to life in state prison. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that he had unlawfully possessed a shuriken. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment.
All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the misdemeanor count of battery on a peace officer (§ 243, subd. (b)). The court declared a mistrial as to that count and ordered the charge dismissed.
I
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On October 14, 2005, Riverside Police Officers Charlie Olivas and Brandi Merrill saw defendant run a stop sign. Officer Olivas attempted to stop him, but defendant drove off. A pursuit ensued. Defendant pulled into the parking lot of a convenience store and walked quickly into the store. When Officer Olivas arrived, defendant was inside the store pacing. Officer Olivas yelled at defendant to come outside. Defendant immediately came outside with his fists clenched and yelled back, “What did I do?” The officer replied that defendant had run a stop sign and that he was going to get a ticket for it. Defendant became agitated and responded, “I didn’t do anything. You are not going to do anything.” Officer Olivas felt threatened and grabbed defendant’s left arm to control him. Officer Merrill arrived at the convenience store as defendant pulled away from Officer Olivas’s grasp.
Defendant pushed Officer Olivas away and tried to run. Officer Olivas grabbed defendant’s upper body; when defendant did not yield, the officer applied pressure to defendant’s carotid artery, causing defendant to lose consciousness. Defendant was given medical care and was taken into custody.
A searched of defendant’s car revealed a shuriken under the front seat. Officer Olivas described the shuriken as a three-bladed star knife with two and one-half inch folding blades. The blades were folded closed when the officers found the shuriken. The officers also found an 18-inch wooden billy club, similar to a baseball bat sold as souvenirs at a baseball stadium, behind the seat of the truck. The club had “Bopper Beware” written on it.
The actual shuriken was lost before trial, but pictures of it were shown to the jury.
Defendant was interviewed at the police station on the day he was arrested. The interview was played for the jury. After defendant waived his constitutional rights, he told Officer Olivas that the shuriken was given to him by a friend named “Lowbo” or Randy. Randy told defendant that an officer had told him he could not possess the knife; Randy had asked defendant to put the knife away or “get rid of it.” Defendant explained that he was going to take the shuriken to his mother’s home, but before going there he went to visit his girlfriend at the hospital. Defendant claimed that he did not know it was illegal to have the “knife.” He only thought it could not be possessed on the streets. Defendant acknowledged that the “knife” looked like a “star” and that it had three edges.
II
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s finding that he unlawfully possessed the shuriken. Specifically, he claims that, because he did not know the shuriken was a weapon, the conviction must be reversed.
“We often address claims of insufficient evidence, and the standard of review is settled. ‘A reviewing court faced with such a claim determines “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” [Citations.] We examine the record to determine “whether it shows 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.” [Citation.] Further, “the appellate court presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 22.)
“In deciding the sufficiency of the evidence, a reviewing court resolves neither credibility issues nor evidentiary conflicts. [Citation.] Resolution of conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony is the exclusive province of the trier of fact. [Citation.] Moreover, unless the testimony is physically impossible or inherently improbable, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to support a conviction. [Citation.]” (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1181.) “‘Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1141, quoting People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 403.)
Section 12020, subdivision (a)(1) provides penalties for possessing, among other things, a shuriken. A shuriken is defined as “any instrument, without handles, consisting of a metal plate having three or more radiating points with one or more sharp edges and designed in the shape of a polygon, trefoil, cross, star, diamond, or other geometric shape for use as a weapon for throwing.” (§ 12020, subd. (c)(11).) In order to convict defendant of illegally possessing a shuriken, the People must prove that (1) defendant possessed a weapon; (2) defendant knew he possessed the weapon; (3) defendant knew the object was a weapon; and (4) the weapon was of a type commonly known as a shuriken. (See Jud. Council of Cal. Crim. Jury Instns. (CALCRIM) No. 2500.) Defendant challenges element 3, i.e., that he knew the object was a weapon.
Defendant cites People v. Rubalcava (2000) 23 Cal.4th 322 (Rubalcava). That case involved unlawful possession of a concealed dirk or dagger under section 12020, subdivision (a). Our Supreme Court rejected the contention that the prosecution was required to prove the defendant’s specific intent to use the concealed instrument as a stabbing weapon. (Rubalcava, at p. 328.) In concluding that the potentially broad reach of the statute did not render it unconstitutional, the court noted that to commit the offense, the defendant “must still have the requisite guilty mind: that is, the defendant must knowingly and intentionally carry concealed upon his or her person an instrument ‘that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon.’ [Citation.] A defendant who does not know that he is carrying the weapon or that the concealed instrument may be used as a stabbing weapon is therefore not guilty of violating section 12020.” (Id. at p. 332, fn. omitted.) The court explained that its construction of the dirk or dagger portion of the statute as containing a knowledge element was based on the fact that it criminalized traditionally lawful conduct, such as the possession of a knife for an innocent purpose. (Id. at pp. 331-332.)
The same cannot be said of the prohibition on possession of a shuriken. Defendant himself admitted to police that he knew possession of the shuriken was illegal “out there on the streets” and that his friend had told him he could not have such a weapon and to “get rid of this knife.” Defendant also acknowledged that it was a “three edged knife” that looked like a “star.” Defendant offered no evidence that he was unaware that the item he possessed was a shuriken or that he did not know it was a weapon. Based on defendant’s own impression of the shuriken as a knife, his awareness that an officer had forbidden his friend from having a shuriken out on the streets, and his knowledge of the unique form of a shuriken, the jury reasonably could have concluded that defendant knew the shuriken was a weapon.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: GAUT J., KING J.