In what circumstances will the district attorney's office decline to file a charge under section 654 of the Criminal Code for possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life?

In light of the number of gang members residing at the house, the difference between the caliber of the ammunition that was found in defendant's bedroom and the caliber of the gun that was found elsewhere, and the place in which the gun was found (a kitchen cabinet where others in the residence could have put the gun), the district attorney's office acted reasonablyindeed commendablyin concluding the gun crime should not be filed against defendant at the outset because there was a lack of sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the crime. In fact, to file a charge the prosecution feels it cannot prove is unethical overcharging that would "aggravate the very harassment [that section 654] was designed to alleviate"; thus, we decline to construe the statute as "impelling a prosecutor filing on one charge to throw the book at the defendant in order to prevent him from acquiring immunity against other potential charges and to protect the prosecutor from accusations of neglect of duty. Such a rule would radically alter the provisions now governing permissive joinder of offenses in a single accusatory pleading, by compelling an indiscriminate joinder of all offenses [regardless of how weak the evidence is to support them]." (People v. Douglas (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 594, 599.)