Heideman

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of a destructive device in a “specified place” (Pen. Code, § 12303.2). He contends that: l) the judgment was void on its face; 2) the court erred in instructing the jury as to the elements of Penal Code section 12303.2 and refusing his proffered instructions; 3) there was no evidence that he possessed a destructive device as he did not have the blasting caps. necessary to set off the dynamite; 4) the destruction of the dynamite by the police for reasons of public safety violated his right to a fair trial; 5) the prosecution committed prejudicial misconduct in telling the jury that he had admitted possession of a destructive device; and 6) the punishment of five years to life imposed on him was cruel and unusual because he intended only to defraud and not to injure. For the reasons set forth below, we have concluded that there is no merit to any of these contentions and that the judgment must be affirmed.

As there are no direct contentions concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, a brief summary of the pertinent facts, as revealed by the record, and aptly set forth in the…