How have courts treated evidence that a defendant had a lot of guns?

Relying on People v. Henderson (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 349 (Henderson), appellant contends the court erred by admitting evidence that he had "a lot of guns" in 2003 because it improperly suggested he "has a criminal disposition and is therefore guilty as charged." In Henderson, the defendant was charged with two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (Id. at p. 351.) The trial court admitted evidence he had a loaded gun in his bedroom to prove his intent to commit the assaults even though the gun in defendant's bedroom was not used to commit the assaults. The Henderson court held the trial court should have excluded the evidence because it was irrelevant to the defendant's intent and was highly prejudicial: "[e]vidence of possession of a weapon not used in the crime charged against a defendant leads logically only to an inference that defendant is the kind of person who surrounds himself with deadly weaponsa fact of no relevant

Page 19

consequence to [a] determination of the guilt or innocence of the defendant." (Id. at p. 360.)