California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Newt is that "receiving" a large-capacity magazine under Penal Code section 32310(a) requires evidence beyond mere possession, specifically evidence as to the provenance of the magazine (such as that defendant bought or received it after January 1, 2000, from someone who manufactured, imported, kept for sale, offered for sale, gave, or lent it), under circumstances where the prosecution seeks a felony conviction for "receiving" rather than a misdemeanor conviction for "possessing" under subdivision (c).

Appeal from felony conviction after jury trial in Superior Court, Contra Costa County.

Defendant Appellant was Robert Antoine-Deshawn Newt — the person found with an assault rifle containing a large-capacity magazine on the front seat of his car while attempting to evade a traffic stop.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution seeking to uphold the felony conviction for receiving a large-capacity magazine.

The suit sounded in criminal law, specifically weapons possession charges under Penal Code section 32310. No cross-claims were applicable.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that an assault rifle with a large-capacity magazine was found on the front seat of the car defendant was driving while he attempted to avoid a traffic stop and from which he subsequently fled. There was no evidence presented as to how or when defendant came to possess the large-capacity magazine.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court entered a felony conviction for receiving a large-capacity magazine under Penal Code section 32310(a), ruling that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether substantial evidence supports the conviction for "receiving" a large-capacity magazine under section 32310(a) where the evidence shows only "possession" 2. Whether the jury was erroneously instructed on the distinction between "receiving" and "possessing" 3. Whether the statute is unconstitutional

The Appellate Court held that section 32310 draws a clear distinction between "receiving" (subdivision (a), punishable as felony or misdemeanor) and "possessing" (subdivision (c), punishable as misdemeanor or infraction) a large-capacity magazine, and that conviction for "receiving" requires evidence beyond mere possession, specifically evidence as to the provenance of the magazine, which was lacking in this case.

The case is inapplicable when there is evidence showing how or when the defendant acquired the large-capacity magazine, such as evidence that defendant bought or received it after the relevant statutory date from someone engaged in manufacturing, importing, selling, or transferring such magazines.

The case leaves open the exact extent of the evidentiary showing required to support a conviction for "receiving" a large-capacity magazine under section 32310(a), the instructional error claim, and the constitutional challenge to the statute.