California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Mizchele, 142 Cal.App.3d 686, 191 Cal.Rptr. 245 (Cal. App. 1983):
In People v. King, 22 Cal.3d 12, 24, 148 Cal.Rptr. 409, 582 P.2d 1000, the state's high court stated: "[W]hen a member of one of the affected classes [i.e., one previously convicted of a felony] is in imminent peril of great bodily harm or reasonably believes himself or others to be in such danger, and without preconceived design on his part a firearm is made available to him, his temporary possession of that weapon for a period no longer than that in which the necessity or apparent necessity to use it in self-defense continues, does not violate section 12021. As in all cases in which deadly force is used or threatened in self-defense, however, the use of the firearm must be reasonable under the circumstances and may be resorted to only if no other alternative means of avoiding the danger are available. In the case of a felon defending himself alone, such alternatives may include retreat where other persons would not be required to do so."
Although the factual context of the case before us differs somewhat, we are of the opinion that the rationale of People v. King is reasonably and equally applicable to it. We find error, in that appropriate instructions were not given in respect of the Penal Code section 12021 charge.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.