Melinda Sims Case Memo
This Memo consists of three parts. First, by analyzing the basic facts and issues of
this case, the elements in this case that the prosecutor might try to prove to charge
Melinda Sims will be discussed. Second, arguments on both sides (the prosecutor and
defense attorney) based on the precedents will be analyzed. In the end, there will be a
prediction based on personal opinion.
A. FACTS AND ISSUES
Ms Sims(Client) was stopped by a Yolo County place officer and asked for her
driver’s license and vehicle registration when she drove home taking the Main St.
exit off Interstate 5 after watching a concert at the Arco Arena and having a glass of
wine in a nearby bar withe three friends. While she was performing the tasks to prove
that she was not intoxicated and turned to walk back, the officer patted she down and
removed from her left jacket pocket a pair of barber scissors. Now the client might
be charged of possession of a concealed dirk or dagger under California Penal Code
Section 12020.
That section provides in part: “Any person * * * who carries concealed upon his
person any dirk or dagger, is guilty of a felony, * * *” In this case, the prosecutor
must prove the following two points in order to charge Ms Sims of the felony under
California Penal Code Section 12020:
1. The barber scissor Ms Sims carried is a “dirk or dagger” within the meaning of that
code section.
2. Ms Sims was carrying this “dirk or dagger” concealed upon her person.
B. ARGUMENTS
• DEFENSE ATTORNEY
In People v. Ruiz, the court said “dirk or dagger” under the California Penal Code
Section 12020 are used synonymously, have been defined as any straight knife to be
worn on the person which is capable of inflicting death, except what is commonly
known as a ‘pocket-knife.’ Also the definition consist of any straight stabbing
weapon, as a dirk, stiletto, etc. (Century Dictionary). In People v. Forrest, supra, 67
Cal.2d at p. 481. this language was quoted with approval and the court held that an
oversized pocketknife is not a “dirk or dagger” because “* * *the blade of the knife
when opened does not lock in place. This severely limits its effectiveness as a
stabbing weapon, because if the blade should hit a hard substance such as a bone,
there is grave danger that the blade would close upon the hand of the wielder. * * *It
was not designed primarily for stabbing. ” What Ms Sims carried was a barber
scissor, which according to our common sense, has a very flexible junction between
the handle and the blade, so its effectiveness was limited as a stabbing weapon.
Which means it is also not designed primarily for stabbing and distinguishes itself
with a “dirk or dagger”.
According to Ms Sims the barber scissors were about 8 inches long from end to end,
would have protruded from her jacket pocket by at least two inches. Also from her
schedule that day, she has been to a concert and a bar, which are all crowed public
places with this barber scissor obviously visibly protruded from her pocket. Thus it
shows that Ms Sims didn't even think of hiding this, and people around her who saw
this barber scissors didn't feel threatened, which is in great contrast to the situation in
Fuentes case, whose dirk was in his waistband rather than in plain sight. So there is
no evidence shows that she was trying the conceal the barber scissors.
As a result, considering the barber scissors only as a functional tool commonly seen
in daily life, Ms Sims just grab it and put in her jacket pocket frankly thought that
might have a certain deterrence to keep her ex-boyfriend away from her, which is in
no violation to California Penal Code Section 12020, rather than concealing a “dirk or
dagger” on the purpose of stabbing someone.
• PROSECUTOR
In People v. Victor as Victor testified that he was carrying the repairing tool for
protection the court held that “As a tire tool, its primary purpose was to repair tires.
But when it was redesigned to have a sharpened point, the trial court was entitled to
conclude its primary purpose was to serve as a stabbing instrument.” As in this case,
Ms Sims schedule shows that at least on that day her activity had nothing to do with
barbershop or relevant work. As she said to the officer, she was carrying this barber
scissors for protection from a belligerent ex-boyfriend. Which gave her intention to
use the scissors to stabbing in stead of its original function.
In People v. Fuentes, the court held that “* * *the mere fact that some portion of the
handle may have been visible makes it no less a concealed weapon. A defendant need
not be totally successful in concealing a dirk to be guilty of violation of Penal Code
section 12020, subdivision (a). ” Same as the situation in this case, the scissors were
in Ms Sims’ jacket, even the police officer who test her for intoxication didn't realize
it until she turn for a back walk, which means it was not in plain sight and didn't
make it a less concealed weapon.
C. PREDICTION
From my perspective, Ms Sims will possibly not found guilty by the court as the
arguments on the defense attorney’s side is more strong as above. Ms Sims carried
the barber scissor which is distinguished from the dirk or dragger as in California
Penal Code Section 12020. Also she carried it in plain sight rather than concealed it.