Vaughn

People v. Vaughn

Good Law
178 Cal. Rptr. 3d 595·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 892·230 Cal. App. 4th 322
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 3, 2014A139318California4,045 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

Penal Code former section 12072, subdivision (d) (hereafter former section 12072(d)) provided, “Where neither party to [a firearms] transaction holds a dealer’s license issued pursuant to [former] Section 12071, the parties to the transaction shall complete the sale, loan, or transfer of that firearm through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to [former] Section 12082.” Despite the statutory language, appellant, who is not a licensed dealer, argues the prosecution must prove that he knew that the person who purchased a firearm from him was also unlicensed. After weighing the Jennings factors (In re Jennings (2004) 34 Cal.4th 254, 268 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 645 , 95 P.3d 906 ] (Jennings)), we reject appellant’s contention and affirm his conviction for violating former section 12072(d).

BACKGROUND

In early 2011, Barry Martin began working as an informant for law enforcement, purchasing firearms from prohibited persons. At the time, Martin supported himself by selling items for other people on the Internet. In March, appellant informed Martin he had a rifle for sale. In April, after the two negotiated the price, appellant came to Martin’s garage and sold him a rifle. Martin was…

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.