Skip to content
Name: In re Arcenio V.
Case #: B186990
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 07/20/2006

The minor appealed a wardship order following the sustaining of a petition which charged the minor with possession of a firearm and possession of live ammunition. He contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for possession of live ammunition because there was insufficient circumstantial evidence that the rounds were “live” within the meaning of section 12101, subdivision (b)(1). The appellate court agreed and reversed that count. The only testimony was that there were bullets in the gun and that they were removed for booking purposes. There was no testimony that removal was necessary for safety and no testimony from the police officer that the rounds were live. Nor did the trial court inspect the rounds or attempt to fire the gun or any of the bullets. Therefore there was insufficient evidence to support the element that the ammunition be live as required by the statute.