What is the test for a conviction for possession of a slungshot?

possession of a sharp object charge. The jury would merely have to conclude that appellant's claim of self-defense raised a reasonable doubt as to appellant's intent to commit assault with a deadly weapon while simultaneously failing to find appellant had proven self-defense on the possession charge by a preponderance of the evidence.⁵ As a not guilty verdict confirms only that the People have not proven their case, there is no basis to believe the jury must have convicted only on possession of a slungshot where substantial evidence supports a finding appellant was also in possession of a sharp object. (People v. Lloyd (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 49, 62.) Because such a scenario is possible, the trial court was correct that the self-defense claim in this case was irrelevant to the possession charge. We therefore affirm our prior opinion's conclusion that substantial evidence supports the conviction for possession of a sharp object.⁶

The Blade Was a Deadly Weapon and Appellant Was Armed Under the Act