Legal Opinion

People v. DeLaCruz

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 30, 1993No. F017092PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

THAXTER, J.

—We hold here that a person certified to use chemical Mace in self-defense, but who does so not in self-defense, may be prosecuted under the special provisions of Penal Code 1 section 12403.7, subdivision (a)(8), but not under the more general provisions of section 375, subdivision (d).

Facts and Procedural Background

On the night of April 6, 1991, appellant was working as a security guard for O’Neal Security at the Taco Bell restaurant in Porterville. He was armed with a chemical Mace dispenser. He had received training in, and was certified for the use of, various weapons,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. People v. GilbertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  2. In Re WilliamsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  3. People v. JenkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  4. People v. RusterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1976
  5. People v. SalemmeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. People v. McDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  2. Molenda v. Department of Motor VehiclesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  3. People v. FranklinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  4. People v. TillmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  5. Souvannarath v. HaddenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API