Can a trial court take judicial notice of the fact that a crime was committed in an incorporated city?

Furthermore, the trial court could take judicial notice of facts which were common knowledge within its territorial jurisdiction (Evid.Code,[18 Cal.App.3d 958] 452(g)), ¹ provided it gave the parties notice of its intention to do so (Evid.Code, 455(a)). The location of local streets within city boundaries is properly a matter of judicial notice (People v. Perry, 216 Cal.App.2d 8, 10--12, 30 Cal.Rptr. 788), as is the fact that a particular jurisdiction is an incorporated city (Bryan v. Abbott, 131 Cal. 222, 225, 63 P. 363). The trial court herein apparently did take judicial notice that the crime was committed in an incorporated city. However it failed to give the parties an opportunity to present to it information relevant to the propriety or tenor of the matter to be noticed. Before the argument in this court we advised the parties that we intended to notice the matter judicially. (Evid.Code, 459.) No information to the contrary was brought to our attention. ² Therefore the breach of etiquette in not following section 455 of the Evidence Code is harmless beyond a doubt. ³

Defendant further challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that the offense occurred in a public place. The parking lot of a market, being accessible to members of the public having business with the market, is a public place for purposes of section 12031 of the Penal Code. (Cf. People v. Green, 15 Cal.App.3d 766, 771, 93 Cal.Rptr. 433.)

The judgment is affirmed.