Mozzetti v. Superior Court

2 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. CASTILLOLOPEZ

    Respondent’s Request for Judicial Notice

    Filed October 30, 2014

    People v Shah (1949) 91 Cal App 2d 716, 205 Pd 108. Proofofpossession alone of any instrument known as black-jack, slug shot, billy sandclub, sandbag, or metal knuckles is sufficient for conviction underthis section;it is not necessary to prove malicious intent or wrongful use of them. People v Odegard (1962, 2ndDist) 203 Cal App 2d 427, 21 Cal Rptr 515 (disapproved on other grounds by Mozzetti v Supertor Court ofSacramento County, 4 Cal 3d 699, 94 Cal Rpir 412, 484 P2d 84). Evidencesufficed to hold defendant responsible for possession of sawed-off shotgun where there was proof that it was his idea to purchase shotgun andconvertit to sawed-off weapon,that he participated with two others in selecting and buying gun,that with hacksaw he converted it into sawed-off shotgun, and that he placedit in suitcase containing his clothing. People v Guyette (1964, 5th Dist) 231 Cal App 2d 460, 41 Cal Rptr 875.

  2. PEOPLE v. POWELL

    Appellant’s Reply Brief

    Filed November 13, 2013

    This Court, too, has cautioned that even limiting instructions appearto call for ‘discrimination so subtle [as to be] a feat beyond the compass of ordinary minds.” (People v. Antick (1975) 15 Cal.3d 79, 98; see also People v. Laursen (1968) 264 Cal.App.2d 932, 939, disapproved on another ground by Mozzetti v. Superior Court (1971) 4 Cal.3d 699, 703 [limiting instruction insufficient to cure prejudice from prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument].) Respondent's reliance on the court's instructions to cure any error is misplaced.