People v. Jeffers
41 Cal.App.4th 917, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 86, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 212 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm requires proof of a general criminal intent to possess the weapon; a felon who acquires a firearm by accident or misfortune and acts to immediately relinquish control lacks the requisite intent for the crime.
Facts:
- A friend, Richard Johnson, asked Bronico D. Jeffers, a felon, to deliver a package for him.
- Jeffers took the package, a box wrapped in a paper bag, to Chuck’s Gun Works.
- Jeffers handed the box to the owner, Charles Bodoh, stating it was a delivery for a friend and that he was a pizza delivery person.
- Bodoh unwrapped the package and discovered a .380-caliber handgun inside.
- As Jeffers was walking out the door, Bodoh called him back to provide his name and contact information for the store's logbook.
- Jeffers provided his information and then left the shop.
- Jeffers later told Detective Beaudreaux that he did not know a gun was in the package until he arrived at the gun shop.
Procedural Posture:
- Bronico D. Jeffers was charged in a California trial court with being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 12021.
- A jury found Jeffers guilty of the charge.
- The trial court sentenced Jeffers to three years of probation to run consecutively with a prior term of probation, along with 150 days in local custody.
- Jeffers appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, arguing instructional error by the trial court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm require proof of general criminal intent, such that a felon who comes into possession of a firearm by accident or misfortune and takes immediate steps to dispose of it may not be guilty of the offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Stone (W. A.), Acting P. J.
Yes. A conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm requires the prosecution to prove a union of act and general criminal intent. Wrongful intent regarding possession must be shown, and a person who acquires a firearm through misfortune or accident without the intent to exercise control has not committed the crime. The court reasoned that knowledge plus physical possession does not conclusively establish the requisite intent as a matter of law, as this would impose strict liability on a felon who innocently discovers a firearm. The trial court's failure to provide a general intent instruction, compounded by its misleading response to a jury question that framed the issue as one of mere knowledge rather than intentional possession, constituted reversible error because it prevented the jury from properly considering the defendant's theory that his possession was unintentional.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that being a felon in possession of a firearm is not a strict liability offense in California and requires proof of a general criminal intent to possess. It solidifies the availability of an 'innocent possession' or 'transitory possession' defense for defendants who come upon a firearm unintentionally and take immediate steps to dispose of it safely. The case highlights the critical importance of accurate jury instructions on the element of intent, as their absence can prevent a jury from considering a valid legal defense. This precedent affects future prosecutions by requiring the state to prove not just that the felon possessed the firearm, but that they did so with a wrongful intent to exercise dominion and control over it.
