Interesting Case Law - Large Capacity Magazines

[treelogger]

Nope, I’m describing the common law “discovery rule”, as codified in PC 803(e): “a limitation of time prescribed in this chapter does not commence to run until the offense has been discovered, or could have reasonably been discovered….”

Interesting. But PC 803(e) applies only to the following list of penal codes (I indented them to make the list more readable):

• with regard to offenses under Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code,
• under Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25100)
  or Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 25280) of Division 20 of,
  or Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500) of Division 26 of,
  or Part 2 (commencing with Section 78000) of Division 45 of,
  the Health and Safety Code,
• or under Section 386,
  or offenses under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2000) of Division 2 of,
  Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of,
  Section 6126 of, Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 7301) of Division 3 of,
  or Chapter 19.5 (commencing with Section 22440) of Division 8 of,
  the Business and Professions Code.

I don't see 803(e) applying to the penal code at all.

To be clear: I'm NOT an attorney, but I have done quite a bit of studying of civil (including collections) and civil rights issues, out of necessity. My knowledge of criminal procedure is threadbare. So I'm happy to become better educated.

 

[dvoncock]

Interesting. But PC 803(e) applies only to the following list of penal codes (I indented them to make the list more readable):

• with regard to offenses under Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code,
• under Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 25100)
  or Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 25280) of Division 20 of,
  or Part 4 (commencing with Section 41500) of Division 26 of,
  or Part 2 (commencing with Section 78000) of Division 45 of,
  the Health and Safety Code,
• or under Section 386,
  or offenses under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 2000) of Division 2 of,
  Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 2 of,
  Section 6126 of, Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 7301) of Division 3 of,
  or Chapter 19.5 (commencing with Section 22440) of Division 8 of,
  the Business and Professions Code.

I don't see 803(e) applying to the penal code at all.

To be clear: I'm NOT an attorney, but I have done quite a bit of studying of civil (including collections) and civil rights issues, out of necessity. My knowledge of criminal procedure is threadbare. So I'm happy to become better educated.

If you want to learn more, I suggest reading PC 799 to 805 and then reviewing the associated “notes of decisions” tagged to those sections in Westlaw, because just reading statues doesn’t give a complete picture.

A good, related example, is the tolling provision for probation. The Penal Code says a probationer’s period of supervision tolls during the periods when his probation has been revoked; but, according to a binding California Supreme Court decision, the opposite is true. It sounds absurd, but the court’s reasoning is entirely logical and fair.

In terms of a hypothetical noncompliant magazine charge, when the defendant tells the judge that the statute of limitations has expired because the mags were bought in 20xx, the DA is just going to argue the crime was concealed and/or move the court for permission to amend the charging document by interlineation (i.e., change the alleged incident to a point inside the statute of limitations). And the superior court is likely to go along with one or both. That’s because judges extremely cautious in their decision making, have a high aversion to risk, and often responded to unusual issues with hostility, especially when the defense raises something that makes the DA or police look bad, or results in an an outright dismissal.

 

[Gawernator]

Nope, I’m describing the common law “discovery rule”, as codified in PC 803(e): “a limitation of time prescribed in this chapter does not commence to run until the offense has been discovered, or could have reasonably been discovered….”

boom lawyer'd

 

[dvoncock]

boom lawyer'd

Not really. California’s PC is just a gigantic, disorganized, hot mess after 150+ years of constant patchwork amendments. It’s really difficult to use and understand, even for us in the biz.

 

[NorCalBusa]

Not really. California’s PC is just a gigantic, disorganized, hot mess after 150+ years of constant patchwork amendments. It’s really difficult to use and understand, even for us in the biz.

No worries, AI will clean it all up in 2027. Of course, the state will immediately begin jacking it all up again before the ink (electrons?) is (are) dry....

 

[dvoncock]

No worries, AI will clean it all up in 2027. Of course, the state will immediately begin jacking it all up again before the ink (electrons?) is (are) dry....

lol. Don’t even get me started on AI in the law biz. The California Bar keeps popping shysters for using AI to write motions. AI has a nasty habit of hallucinating caselaw into existence. It even includes invented case citations that look legit but index back to nonexistent, imaginary cases.

 

[treelogger]

If you want to learn more, I suggest reading PC 799 to 805 and then reviewing the associated “notes of decisions” tagged to those sections in Westlaw, because just reading statues doesn’t give a complete picture.

Thank you for that explanation! It seems that reading the law (the penal code) will often give the outright wrong answer. Which to me, being educated in German law, continues to seem very strange.

Sadly, I don't have a Westlaw subscription, as I'm not a professional in this field. For areas of the law I actually care about, I study; for example, sitting right next to me are two volumes of the Rutter Group California practice guides.

 

[dvoncock]

Thank you for that explanation! It seems that reading the law (the penal code) will often give the outright wrong answer. Which to me, being educated in German law, continues to seem very strange.

Sadly, I don't have a Westlaw subscription, as I'm not a professional in this field. For areas of the law I actually care about, I study; for example, sitting right next to me are two volumes of the Rutter Group California practice guides.

No worries. Europe’s civil law code systems are very different to the American and British precedential legal systems. The U.S. is especially odd because we have coequal, parallel state and federal systems, state level judges who are elected (which can result in a bench of mixed qualifications), and use lay juries to decide trials. It’s kind of insane in a uniquely eighteenth century American sort of way.

 

[Gawernator]

lol. Don’t even get me started on AI in the law biz. The California Bar keeps popping shysters for using AI to write motions. AI has a nasty habit of hallucinating caselaw into existence. It even includes invented case citations that look legit but index back to nonexistent, imaginary cases.

Crazy how fast it’s progressing. On ChatGPT 6 I haven’t seen it hallucinate a case yet. It keeps getting way smarter but still makes mistakes ofc

 

[RickD427]

Crazy how fast it’s progressing. On ChatGPT 6 I haven’t seen it hallucinate a case yet. It keeps getting way smarter but still makes mistakes ofc

It happens a lot. Just about every other week there is a report where someone gets fanged for citing bogus AI generated stuff in court filings.

Here's a recent case where a pro se litigant got fanged (with the trial court yet to determine the damages) for using bogus AI-generated citations in their filing.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/E085566.PDF

 

[Gawernator]

It happens a lot. Just about every other week there is a report where someone gets fanged for citing bogus AI generated stuff in court filings.

Here's a recent case where a pro se litigant got fanged (with the trial court yet to determine the damages) for using bogus AI-generated citations in their filing.

https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/E085566.PDF

Yeah I’m sure. I couldn’t remember which proof of service to use for this case and ChatGPT 6 had me locked in (FL-115) and even helped me write the declaration for substitute service lol. It’s sharp. Checked all the court rules and civil codes and it was spot on perfect.

The improvement from a year or two ago is huge so I can’t imagine the next decade