Mayberry

People v. Mayberry

Good Law
160 Cal. App. 4th 165·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 233·72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 712
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 15, 2008C053116California2,845 words

Opinion

Opinion

Blease, J.

Defendant Rickey Lee Mayberry battered the victim with a standard weighted workout glove containing sand in the palm area. A jury found him guilty of battery with serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d); count one) and possession of a dangerous weapon. (§ 12020, subd. (a)(1); count two.)

Defendant’s principal claim on appeal is that the workout glove is not within the list of weapons prohibited by the last clause of section 12020, subdivision (a)(1), which derives from the Dangerous Weapons Control Law of 1923. (Stats. 1923, ch. 339, § 1, p. 696.) We agree.

The subdivision prohibits the possession of “any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag.” (§ 12020, subd. (a)(1), italics added.) The trial court instructed the jury that defendant was guilty of the offense if he “possessed a weighted glove[,] . . . knew that he possessed the weighted glove [and] possessed the object as a weapon.”

In the published portion of the opinion we conclude that a workout glove is not “commonly known” as a “sandclub ... or sandbag,” regardless that it contained sand or was used by defendant to hit a victim in the…

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.