## Facts

- Bronico D. Jeffers, a convicted felon, brought a wrapped box in a paper bag to a gun shop, stating he was delivering it for a friend.
- The shop owner opened the box and found a .380-caliber handgun; Jeffers began walking out and was called back to provide identifying information for the shop log.
- An employee later noticed the gun’s serial numbers had been ground off, and law enforcement was contacted.
- A detective seized the gun and interviewed Jeffers, who said he was delivering the gun for a friend and described a missing trigger pin; he provided shifting names and insufficient information to locate the purported owner.
- Jeffers was charged under California Penal Code § 12021 (possession of a firearm by a felon).
- At trial, Jeffers claimed he did not know the package contained a gun until it was opened at the shop and that any post-discovery possession was brief and nonculpable.
- Jeffers requested a pinpoint instruction that § 12021 is not violated automatically when a felon initially possesses an item without knowledge it is a firearm and only later learns of the firearm; the court refused.
- The jury convicted Jeffers; the court imposed probation and ordered, among other conditions, a $1,000 restitution fine payable within 24 months of release.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by failing to properly instruct on the general intent element of Penal Code § 12021, including the requirement of a union of act and intent to exercise control over the firearm, and by refusing a defense pinpoint instruction supported by the evidence.
2. Whether the trial court exceeded its authority by ordering the $1,000 restitution fine to be paid within a fixed 24-month period following release from custody.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment due to prejudicial instructional error on the mental state required for a § 12021 violation.
- The court held that the instructions, including the court’s handling of a jury inquiry, risked treating knowledge plus physical possession as establishing intent to control as a matter of law rather than as a permissible inference for the jury.
- The refusal to give a correct, supported pinpoint instruction prevented the jury from being directly instructed on the defense theory of nonculpable, momentary possession after learning the item was a firearm.
- Because the conviction was reversed, the restitution fine order did not stand; any future order would need to conform to statutory limits concerning payment terms.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 12021 is a general intent offense requiring knowing possession and an intent to exercise dominion and control over the firearm, with a required union of act and intent.
- Knowledge and physical possession may support an inference of intent to control, but they do not establish intent as a matter of law; intent remains a jury question based on the circumstances.
- A defendant is entitled to a pinpoint instruction that is a correct statement of law, supported by substantial evidence, and not otherwise covered by the instructions; refusal is reversible if it impairs the jury’s ability to apply the law to the defense theory.
- When intent is the central disputed issue, instructional omissions or misdirection on the intent element are prejudicial if they permit conviction without the requisite finding of intent to control.

## Conclusion

The court reversed the felon-in-possession conviction because the jury was not properly instructed that § 12021 requires an intent to exercise dominion and control, and the defense was entitled to a pinpoint instruction addressing nonculpable possession upon later discovery of a firearm.


People v. Jeffers, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 86 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)