What is the legal test for possession of a controlled substance with a firearm?

The requisite intent for possession of a controlled substance with a firearm is knowledge of the presence and nature of the methamphetamine and knowledge of the presence of a loaded, operable firearm for immediate use. (See CALCRIM No. 2303; People v. Palaschak (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1236, 1242.) The possession was complete "once the intent to possess [was] perfected by possession." (People v. Jones (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1146 [possession of firearm by felon].)

The requisite intent for child endangerment is criminal negligence, i.e., reckless conduct that creates a high risk of death or great bodily harm, whether or not the actor intended to create that risk. (See CALCRIM No. 821; People v. Hansen (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 473, 478.) That intent was separate from, and had to be formed after, defendant's possession of the controlled substance with a firearm. Defendant had to negligently or intentionally put the controlled substance and firearm in a location where his two-year-old child could gain access to them, placing his son at risk of harm.

Furthermore, the point of section 654 is to ensure that the punishment imposed on the defendants correspond to their culpability. (People v. Latimer, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1211.) The two offenses, possession of a controlled substance with a firearm and child endangerment, target different legislative bans one designed to protect the public from controlled substances, the other intended to protect children from the criminal negligence of their parents. Defendant's culpability in having these items in the home of his two-

Page 6

year-old child is obviously greater than if he had them in his possession elsewhere. Thus, the trial court did not violate section 654. (See People v. Arndt (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 387, 398.)

The judgment is affirmed.