momentary possession defense (California) · Go Syfert
← California issues

momentary possession defense in California

6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
People v. Peppergreen
calctapp · 1996 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–2001
2 sentences

2001Therefore, in a case in which a defendant is entitled to an instruction on temporary possession for disposal, we conclude the trial court should instruct pursuant to the original version of CALJIC No. 12.06 based upon Mijares . ' ([ Hurtado, ] supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 814 , 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 853 ; see also People v. Pepper [ supra, ] 41 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1036-1038 , 48 Cal. Rptr.2d 877 , ruling the momentary possession defense does not apply to a violation of section 12021 except when the firearm is possesed momentarily in self-defense, in defense of others, or as a result of legal necessity.)

2001Therefore, in a case in which a defendant is entitled to an instruction on temporary possession for disposal, we conclude the trial court should instruct pursuant to the original version of CALJIC No. 12.06 based upon Mijares . ' ([ Hurtado, ] supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 814 , 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 853 ; see also People v. Pepper [ supra, ] 41 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1036-1038 , 48 Cal. Rptr.2d 877 , ruling the momentary possession defense does not apply to a violation of section 12021 except when the firearm is possesed momentarily in self-defense, in defense of others, or as a result of legal necessity.)

22
People v. Hurtadogreen
calctapp · 1996 · cited in 3 California opinions naming this issue, 1998–2016
2 sentences

2001Accordingly, the trial court did not err by failing to give sua sponte the momentary possession instruction derived from Mijares . " ( Id. at p. 1312, 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 627 .) Frazier also placed reliance on People v. Hurtado, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th 805 , 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 853 ( Hurtado ), which case similarly rejected the rationale and holding of Cole in construing an arguably analogous unlawful possession statute.

2001Accordingly, the trial court did not err by failing to give sua sponte the momentary possession instruction derived from Mijares . " ( Id. at p. 1312, 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 627 .) Frazier also placed reliance on People v. Hurtado, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th 805 , 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 853 ( Hurtado ), which case similarly rejected the rationale and holding of Cole in construing an arguably analogous unlawful possession statute.

13
People v. Fraziergreen
calctapp · 1998 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2013
2 sentences

2001Accordingly, the trial court did not err by failing to give sua sponte the momentary possession instruction derived from Mijares . " ( Id. at p. 1312, 74 Cal. Rptr.2d 627 .) Frazier also placed reliance on People v. Hurtado, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th 805 , 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 853 ( Hurtado ), which case similarly rejected the rationale and holding of Cole in construing an arguably analogous unlawful possession statute.

2001Therefore, in a case in which a defendant is entitled to an instruction on temporary possession for disposal, we conclude the trial court should instruct pursuant to the original version of CALJIC No. 12.06 based upon Mijares . ' ([ Hurtado, ] supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 814 , 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 853 ; see also People v. Pepper [ supra, ] 41 Cal.App.4th 1029, 1036-1038 , 48 Cal. Rptr.2d 877 , ruling the momentary possession defense does not apply to a violation of section 12021 except when the firearm is possesed momentarily in self-defense, in defense of others, or as a result of legal necessity.)

12
People v. Sullivangreen
calctapp · 1989 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 2001–2013
2 sentences

2013In People v. Sullivan (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1446, 1453 , the defendant was found guilty of manufacturing and possessing methamphetamine for sale, placing him outside the realm of a momentary possession defense.

2001As noted, the statutes (past and present) at issue in the cases we have reviewed all make unlawful the possession of enumerated controlled substances "without regard to the [possessor's] specific intent in possessing the substance." ( Sullivan, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 1452 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 284 [but see ante, fn. 4, p. 5, 264 Cal.Rptr. 284 ].) As aptly explained in People v. Spry, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at page 1369 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 691 , "When a defendant relies on the Mijares defense, he or she essentially admits the commission of the offense of simple possession of narcotics: The defendant

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
People v. Marquez green
cal · 1992
1 sentence

2025But “[a] trial court must instruct the jury, even without a request, on all general principles of law that are ‘ “closely and openly connected to the facts and that are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” ’ ” (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 246 .) “The duty to instruct sua sponte” includes “defenses that are raised by the evidence.” (People v. Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 581 .) “The court may, however, ‘properly refuse an instruction . . . if it is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Burney, at p. 246.) “[T]he court need not give the requested instruction whe

12025–2025
People v. Mijares green
cal · 1971
1 sentence

2025But “[a] trial court must instruct the jury, even without a request, on all general principles of law that are ‘ “closely and openly connected to the facts and that are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” ’ ” (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 246 .) “The duty to instruct sua sponte” includes “defenses that are raised by the evidence.” (People v. Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 581 .) “The court may, however, ‘properly refuse an instruction . . . if it is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Burney, at p. 246.) “[T]he court need not give the requested instruction whe

12025–2025
People v. Martin green
cal · 2001
1 sentence

2025While Kestner’s statements suggested he only briefly handled the firearm, there was no evidence he possessed it “ ‘for the purpose of abandonment, disposal, or destruction.’ ” (People v. Martin, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 8 p. 1190.) Instead, he simply moved the firearm from one area of the house to another so D.F. could “grab some cigarettes.” Kestner placed the firearm in a common area over which he continued to have access.

12025–2025
People v. Burney green
cal · 2009
1 sentence

2025But “[a] trial court must instruct the jury, even without a request, on all general principles of law that are ‘ “closely and openly connected to the facts and that are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” ’ ” (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 246 .) “The duty to instruct sua sponte” includes “defenses that are raised by the evidence.” (People v. Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 581 .) “The court may, however, ‘properly refuse an instruction . . . if it is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Burney, at p. 246.) “[T]he court need not give the requested instruction whe

12025–2025
People v. Barnett green
calctapp · 1998
1 sentence

2025But “[a] trial court must instruct the jury, even without a request, on all general principles of law that are ‘ “closely and openly connected to the facts and that are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” ’ ” (People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 246 .) “The duty to instruct sua sponte” includes “defenses that are raised by the evidence.” (People v. Marquez (1992) 1 Cal.4th 553, 581 .) “The court may, however, ‘properly refuse an instruction . . . if it is not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (Burney, at p. 246.) “[T]he court need not give the requested instruction whe

12025–2025
People v. Maury green
cal · 2003
1 sentence

2022(People v. Molano (2019) 7 Cal.5th 620, 667 ; People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 424 .) Armas did not invoke the momentary possession defense at trial, and there was no substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude he possessed child pornography only very briefly for the purpose of getting rid of it.

12022–2022
People v. Molano green
cal · 2019
1 sentence

2022(People v. Molano (2019) 7 Cal.5th 620, 667 ; People v. Maury (2003) 30 Cal.4th 342, 424 .) Armas did not invoke the momentary possession defense at trial, and there was no substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude he possessed child pornography only very briefly for the purpose of getting rid of it.

12022–2022
People v. Cole green
calctapp · 1988
2 sentences

2001To the extent People v. Cole, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d 1439 , 249 Cal.Rptr. 601 , and People v. Spry, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1345 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 691 , [10] are inconsistent *609 with the views expressed herein, they are disapproved.

2001To the extent People v. Cole, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d 1439 , 249 Cal.Rptr. 601 , and People v. Spry, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1345 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 691 , [10] are inconsistent *609 with the views expressed herein, they are disapproved.

12001–2001
People v. Spry green
calctapp · 1997
2 sentences

2001As noted, the statutes (past and present) at issue in the cases we have reviewed all make unlawful the possession of enumerated controlled substances "without regard to the [possessor's] specific intent in possessing the substance." ( Sullivan, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 1452 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 284 [but see ante, fn. 4, p. 5, 264 Cal.Rptr. 284 ].) As aptly explained in People v. Spry, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at page 1369 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 691 , "When a defendant relies on the Mijares defense, he or she essentially admits the commission of the offense of simple possession of narcotics: The defendant

2001As noted, the statutes (past and present) at issue in the cases we have reviewed all make unlawful the possession of enumerated controlled substances "without regard to the [possessor's] specific intent in possessing the substance." ( Sullivan, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 1452 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 284 [but see ante, fn. 4, p. 5, 264 Cal.Rptr. 284 ].) As aptly explained in People v. Spry, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at page 1369 , 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 691 , "When a defendant relies on the Mijares defense, he or she essentially admits the commission of the offense of simple possession of narcotics: The defendant

12001–2001

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check