Tweet
Going back to the original question, 'open carry' is NOT 'substantially concealed'.
The Calcrim jury instructions reference
Wharton references Fuentes,
Though both of those refer to dirk or dagger, the Calcrim folks seem to believe that applies to concealable firearms, too.
The Calcrim jury instructions reference
Substantial Concealment.
People v. Wharton (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 72, 75 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 673] [interpreting now-repealed Pen. Code, ? 12020(a)(4)];
People v. Fuentes (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 955 [134 Cal.Rptr. 885] [same].
Wharton says People v. Wharton (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 72, 75 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 673] [interpreting now-repealed Pen. Code, ? 12020(a)(4)];
People v. Fuentes (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 953, 955 [134 Cal.Rptr. 885] [same].
1] Defendant contends there is insufficient evidence of concealment because the tip of the knife was protruding from his pocket. We disagree. Only substantial concealment is required. (People v. Fuentes (1976) 64 Cal. App. 3d 953, 955 [134 Cal. Rptr. 885] [dirk with handle protruding from waistband found to be a concealed weapon].) "A defendant need not be totally successful in concealing a dirk to be guilty of violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a)." (People v. Fuentes, supra, 64 Cal.App.3d at p. 955.)
Here, the jury was permitted to examine the knife, which our perusal discloses is approximately seven and three-eighths inches long. The jury was apprised that only one and one-half to two inches of the blade were protruding from defendant's pocket. These facts support a finding of substantial concealment. [5 Cal. App. 4th 76]
Here, the jury was permitted to examine the knife, which our perusal discloses is approximately seven and three-eighths inches long. The jury was apprised that only one and one-half to two inches of the blade were protruding from defendant's pocket. These facts support a finding of substantial concealment. [5 Cal. App. 4th 76]
Fuentes contends that there was no evidence to show that the dirk was concealed and argues that "[t]here is not even a suggestion in the record that the dirk was ever anywhere but in plain sight." The dirk obviously was not in plain sight. This is not a situation where the weapon was carried openly in a sheath or attached to a belt. fn. 1 The dirk was in Fuentes' waistband. [1] The mere fact that some portion of the handle may have been visible makes it no less a concealed weapon. A defendant need not be totally successful in concealing a dirk to be guilty of violation of Penal Code section 12020, subdivision (a). (See People v. Hale, 43 Cal. App. 3d 353, 356 [117 Cal. Rptr. 697]; People v. May, 33 Cal. App. 3d 888, 891 [109 Cal. Rptr. 396]; People v. Tarkington, 273 Cal. App. 2d 466, 469 [78 Cal. Rptr. 149].) [64 Cal. App. 3d 956]
Comment