How has the court assessed the affidavit supporting a charge of possession of a firearm with intent to pervert the course of justice?

The trial court failed to assess the affidavit in a "commonsense and realistic fashion." (United States v. Ventresca (1965) 380 U.S. 102, 108, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684.) The court agreed with the prosecutor that "it's not unreasonable to conclude that [defendant] didn't sell [the guns] or dispose of them, that he's still controlling them in some way if they're still registered to him." Yet the court went on to distinguish "control" and "possess[ion]," stating that "possess[ing] them" was "slightly different." The court observed that "I don't see anything that puts [defendant] in contact with any of these guns," and "he registered them long before it was illegal to possess them, and no one said that he's ever touched them after he got convicted." The court ignored the evidence that current records also showed that defendant did not dispose of the guns after he was convicted, which is prima facie evidence he continued to possess them. Where the crime is illegal possession of a firearm, current records showing defendant remained the registered owner after his conviction is sufficient to establish "a fair probability" that he currently possesses them.

[242 Cal.App.4th 175]