Runnion

People v. Runnion

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 1236·30 Cal. App. 4th 852·36 Cal. Rptr. 2d 203·94 Daily Journal DAR 16989·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9234
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 1, 1994A063697California2,198 words

Opinion

Opinion

Corrigan, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment following conviction by jury of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (b)) and personal use of a firearm (Pen. Code, §§ 1203.06, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a).) Defendant alleges the court’s instruction that the word “firearm” includes “handgun” violated due process by removing a necessary element of the use clause from the jury’s consideration and amounted to a directed verdict as to that element. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Statement of Facts

Around 11:30 p.m. on March 3, 1993, defendant went into a 7-Eleven store in Walnut Creek and robbed the clerk, Jeffrey Bach. Defendant approached the counter and said, “This ainfjt no bull shit, it’s the real thing.” As Bach turned toward defendant, he heard a clicking noise which he recognized as the sliding action of a gun being cocked. Bach looked down and saw defendant was holding a handgun pointed at Bach’s stomach. Defendant ordered Bach to give him all the money. Bach complied by giving defendant the $1 and $5 bills in the cash drawer. Defendant appeared to uncock the gun and place it in his waistband. He picked up a 7-Eleven hot dog he had laid on the counter…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.