Receiving Stolen Property - Revision history

Sysop at 06:51, 7 May 2025

2025-05-07T06:51:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:51, 7 May 2025
Line 20:		Line 20:

	Mandatory rebuttable presumption: In People v. Roder, 33 Cal. 3d 491, 498, 502–504, 189 Cal. Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302 (1983), the Supreme Court examined the Pen. Code, § 496 presumption of guilty knowledge imposed on secondhand dealers of property. The court concluded the presumption was a “mandatory, rebuttable presumption” that limited the jury's freedom to assess independently all of the prosecution evidence in determining whether the facts of the case established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court held that the jury instruction, although phrased as a rebuttable presumption, was unconstitutional where the actual instruction was ambiguous, and jurors could reasonably have interpreted it as relieving the prosecution of part of its burden of proof.		Mandatory rebuttable presumption: In People v. Roder, 33 Cal. 3d 491, 498, 502–504, 189 Cal. Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302 (1983), the Supreme Court examined the Pen. Code, § 496 presumption of guilty knowledge imposed on secondhand dealers of property. The court concluded the presumption was a “mandatory, rebuttable presumption” that limited the jury's freedom to assess independently all of the prosecution evidence in determining whether the facts of the case established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court held that the jury instruction, although phrased as a rebuttable presumption, was unconstitutional where the actual instruction was ambiguous, and jurors could reasonably have interpreted it as relieving the prosecution of part of its burden of proof.

			==Aggregation==

			Penal Code section 496 (receiving/concealing/buying/selling stolen property) is not an enumerated offense in Penal Code section 490.3 even though the value of such property must exceed $950 in order to have a felony charge, because aggregation is essentially permitted for violations of Penal Code section 496 under existing law. The possession at one time of stolen goods—even multiple goods stolen from different victims—is but one violation of Penal Code section 496. A defendant cannot be convicted of multiple violations of section 496 unless it can be shown that the stolen property was received on different occasions. (People v. Mitchell (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 442, 461–463; People v. Roberts (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 431, 436–437; People v. Lyons (1958) 50 Cal.2d 245, 275.)

	==Multiple counts==		==Multiple counts==

Sysop at 20:44, 13 October 2024

2024-10-13T20:44:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:44, 13 October 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:

			Under People v. Bullard (2020) 9 Cal.5th 94, "a conviction [] based on posttheft driving (i.e., driving separated from the vehicle's taking by a substantial break)" is a felony regardless of value. Or PC496d(a) is a felony regardless of value. (People v. Orozco (2020) 9 Cal.5th 111.)

	==Statute of Limitations==		==Statute of Limitations==

Sysop: /* Statute of Limitations */

2020-06-14T06:54:29Z

Statute of Limitations

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:54, 14 June 2020
Line 5:		Line 5:

	The defense that a charged offense is barred by the applicable limitations period is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time. (People v. Williams (1999) 21 Cal.4th 335, 339, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 981 P.2d 42.) It has been held that receiving stolen property and concealing stolen property are separate offenses. (Williams v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 330, 343, 146 Cal.Rptr. 311; see also People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 846, 861, fn. 14, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 279, 984 P.2d 486.) The crime of receiving stolen property is complete when the defendant takes possession of property with knowledge it is stolen. (Ibid.)		The defense that a charged offense is barred by the applicable limitations period is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time. (People v. Williams (1999) 21 Cal.4th 335, 339, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 981 P.2d 42.) It has been held that receiving stolen property and concealing stolen property are separate offenses. (Williams v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 330, 343, 146 Cal.Rptr. 311; see also People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 846, 861, fn. 14, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 279, 984 P.2d 486.) The crime of receiving stolen property is complete when the defendant takes possession of property with knowledge it is stolen. (Ibid.)
	*595 As defendant argues, there was no evidence he received the computer equipment within three years of May 2, 2001, the date he was charged with receiving it. Thus, the offense of receiving stolen property was time barred.		As defendant argues, there was no evidence he received the computer equipment within three years of May 2, 2001, the date he was charged with receiving it. Thus, the offense of receiving stolen property was time barred.
	20 Unlike the crime of receiving stolen property, however, the crime of concealing stolen property is a continuing offense. “It consists of the act of intentionally secreting stolen property in violation of the affirmative duty to return it ... to its rightful owner.” (Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 81 Cal.App.3d at pp. 343–344, 146 Cal.Rptr. 311.) Both offenses are proscribed by section 496, subdivision (a).11		20 Unlike the crime of receiving stolen property, however, the crime of concealing stolen property is a continuing offense. “It consists of the act of intentionally secreting stolen property in violation of the affirmative duty to return it ... to its rightful owner.” (Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 81 Cal.App.3d at pp. 343–344, 146 Cal.Rptr. 311.) Both offenses are proscribed by section 496, subdivision (a).11
	The jury was given a modified version of CALJIC No. 14.65. In accordance with section 496, subdivision (a), the instruction defined concealing stolen property as a form of receiving stolen property.12 Additionally, substantial evidence showed that defendant was guilty of concealing stolen property.		The jury was given a modified version of CALJIC No. 14.65. In accordance with section 496, subdivision (a), the instruction defined concealing stolen property as a form of receiving stolen property.12 Additionally, substantial evidence showed that defendant was guilty of concealing stolen property.
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Receiving stolen property and concealing stolen property are separate offenses. The crime of receiving stolen property congeals and is completed upon taking possession of the property with knowledge that it is stolen. (People v. Feldman, 171 Cal.App.2d 15, 23, 24, 339 P.2d 888.)		Receiving stolen property and concealing stolen property are separate offenses. The crime of receiving stolen property congeals and is completed upon taking possession of the property with knowledge that it is stolen. (People v. Feldman, 171 Cal.App.2d 15, 23, 24, 339 P.2d 888.)
			Williams v. Superior Court 1978

	A person can't be convicted of receiving stolen property and theft of the same property. People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 1		A person can't be convicted of receiving stolen property and theft of the same property. People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 1
Line 18:		Line 19:

	Mandatory rebuttable presumption: In People v. Roder, 33 Cal. 3d 491, 498, 502–504, 189 Cal. Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302 (1983), the Supreme Court examined the Pen. Code, § 496 presumption of guilty knowledge imposed on secondhand dealers of property. The court concluded the presumption was a “mandatory, rebuttable presumption” that limited the jury's freedom to assess independently all of the prosecution evidence in determining whether the facts of the case established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court held that the jury instruction, although phrased as a rebuttable presumption, was unconstitutional where the actual instruction was ambiguous, and jurors could reasonably have interpreted it as relieving the prosecution of part of its burden of proof.		Mandatory rebuttable presumption: In People v. Roder, 33 Cal. 3d 491, 498, 502–504, 189 Cal. Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302 (1983), the Supreme Court examined the Pen. Code, § 496 presumption of guilty knowledge imposed on secondhand dealers of property. The court concluded the presumption was a “mandatory, rebuttable presumption” that limited the jury's freedom to assess independently all of the prosecution evidence in determining whether the facts of the case established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court held that the jury instruction, although phrased as a rebuttable presumption, was unconstitutional where the actual instruction was ambiguous, and jurors could reasonably have interpreted it as relieving the prosecution of part of its burden of proof.


	==Multiple counts==		==Multiple counts==

Sysop at 06:54, 14 June 2020

2020-06-14T06:54:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:54, 14 June 2020
Line 11:		Line 11:

	People v. Grant (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 579, 594–595		People v. Grant (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 579, 594–595

			Receiving stolen property and concealing stolen property are separate offenses. The crime of receiving stolen property congeals and is completed upon taking possession of the property with knowledge that it is stolen. (People v. Feldman, 171 Cal.App.2d 15, 23, 24, 339 P.2d 888.)

	A person can't be convicted of receiving stolen property and theft of the same property. People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 1		A person can't be convicted of receiving stolen property and theft of the same property. People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 1

Sysop at 06:50, 14 June 2020

2020-06-14T06:50:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:50, 14 June 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:


			==Statute of Limitations==


			The defense that a charged offense is barred by the applicable limitations period is jurisdictional and may be raised at any time. (People v. Williams (1999) 21 Cal.4th 335, 339, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 412, 981 P.2d 42.) It has been held that receiving stolen property and concealing stolen property are separate offenses. (Williams v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 330, 343, 146 Cal.Rptr. 311; see also People v. Allen (1999) 21 Cal.4th 846, 861, fn. 14, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 279, 984 P.2d 486.) The crime of receiving stolen property is complete when the defendant takes possession of property with knowledge it is stolen. (Ibid.)
			*595 As defendant argues, there was no evidence he received the computer equipment within three years of May 2, 2001, the date he was charged with receiving it. Thus, the offense of receiving stolen property was time barred.
			20 Unlike the crime of receiving stolen property, however, the crime of concealing stolen property is a continuing offense. “It consists of the act of intentionally secreting stolen property in violation of the affirmative duty to return it ... to its rightful owner.” (Williams v. Superior Court, supra, 81 Cal.App.3d at pp. 343–344, 146 Cal.Rptr. 311.) Both offenses are proscribed by section 496, subdivision (a).11
			The jury was given a modified version of CALJIC No. 14.65. In accordance with section 496, subdivision (a), the instruction defined concealing stolen property as a form of receiving stolen property.12 Additionally, substantial evidence showed that defendant was guilty of concealing stolen property.


			People v. Grant (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 579, 594–595

	A person can't be convicted of receiving stolen property and theft of the same property. People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 1		A person can't be convicted of receiving stolen property and theft of the same property. People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 1

Sysop: /* Jury Instructions */

2020-06-14T06:05:57Z

Jury Instructions

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:05, 14 June 2020
Line 29:		Line 29:

	===CALJIC 14.50===		===CALJIC 14.50===


			CALJIC 14.65 Receiving Stolen Property—Defined (Spring 2015 Revision, Spring 2019 Revision, Fall 2019 Comment Revision)
			Authority:
			(Penal Code § 496, subdivision (a))
			[Defendant is accused [in Count[s] ] of having committed the crime of receiving stolen property, a violation of section 496, subdivision (a) of the Penal Code.]
			Every person [who buys or receives any property [which has been stolen] [or] [which has been obtained by [theft] [extortion]], knowing the property to be [stolen] [or] [so obtained],] [or] [[who sells or aids in selling property] [or] [who conceals or withholds or aids in concealing or withholding property from the owner], knowing the property to have been [stolen] [or] [so obtained],] is guilty of the crime of receiving stolen property in violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a).
			In order to prove this crime, each of the following elements must be proved:
			[1. A person [bought] [received] property which had been [stolen] [or] [obtained by extortion]; and]
			[1. A person sold or aided in selling property which had been [stolen] [or] [obtained by theft or extortion]; and]
			[1. A person [concealed] [or] [withheld] [or] [aided in [concealing] [or] [withholding]] property from the owner which had been [stolen] [or] [obtained by theft or extortion]; and]
			2. That person actually knew the property was [stolen] [or] [obtained by theft or extortion] at the time [he] [she] [bought] [received] [withheld] [sold] [concealed] [aided in [concealing] [or] [withholding] from the owner] the property.
			[It is also alleged that the total value of the property so received exceeds nine hundred fifty dollars ($950). The People have the burden of proving the truth of the allegation. If you have a reasonable doubt that the value exceeds nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), you must find the allegation to be not true.]
			[It is also alleged that the defendant had previously been convicted of the crime of . The People have the burden of proving the truth of the allegation. If you have a reasonable doubt that the value exceeds nine hundred fifty dollars ($950), you must find the allegation to be not true.]
			USE NOTE
			This instruction can be used for either a misdemeanor or felony prosecution.
			The prior offense or offenses which elevate the misdemeanor to a felony are found at Penal Code § 667, subd. (e), subparagraph (C), clause (iv), or any offense requiring registration pursuant to Penal Code § 290, subd. (c).
			Since receiving stolen property is a crime, a defendant may admit or stipulate to the truth of the prior conviction[s] outside the presence of the jury, and avoid that becoming a jury determination.
			COMMENT
			Penal Code § 496, subd. (a), as revised by Proposition 47, adopted by the electorate November 4, 2014.
			Where there is an issue of fact whether the subject property was actually stolen or obtained by theft, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the elements of the crime of theft, particularly the intent requirement. People v. MacArthur (2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 275, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 736.
			Assuming a defendant’s knowledge that the property at issue was stolen, section 496, subdivision (a) may be violated in either of two ways: (1) by buying or receiving any property that has been stolen or (2) by concealing, selling, withholding, or aiding in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner. If the prosecution relies on “receipt” theory, as opposed to “concealment” theory it is improper to aggregate the value of the stolen goods in order to reach the $950 threshold necessary for felony conviction. People v. Brown (2019) 32 Cal. App. 5th 726, 732-733, 243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 921.
			If the defendant relies on mistake of fact as a defense or if there is substantial evidence that supports that defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on the defense of mistake of fact. See CALJIC 4.35. People v. Russell (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 1415, 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 263.
			Penal Code § 496(a); 2 Witkin and Epstein, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012), Crimes Against Property § 72.
			The substance of this instruction contains a correct statement of the law. (People v. Wielograf, 101 Cal. App. 3d 488, 494, 161 Cal. Rptr. 680, 684 (1st Dist. 1980).)
			One who receives property believing it to be stolen when in fact it has already been recovered by the police is guilty of an attempt to receive stolen property. (People v. Rojas, 55 Cal. 2d 252, 258, 10 Cal. Rptr. 465, 468–469, 358 P.2d 921 (1961).)
			Possession of stolen property is not shown by mere access or proximity to stolen goods; dominion and control must be shown. (People v. Myles, 50 Cal. App. 3d 423, 429, 123 Cal. Rptr. 348, 351 (2d Dist. 1975).)
			In the prosecution of an attempt to receive stolen property, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the defendant had had any prior connection with the thief or that the goods received had in fact been stolen. (People v. Moss, 55 Cal. App. 3d 179, 183, 127 Cal. Rptr. 454, 456 (2d Dist. 1976).)
			The crime of receiving stolen property is complete upon taking possession of the property with knowledge that it is stolen. (Williams v. Superior Court, 81 Cal. App. 3d 330, 343, 146 Cal. Rptr. 311, 318 (2d Dist. 1978).)
			Property need not be hidden in a vault or buried in the ground in order to be concealed. All that is necessary is that its whereabouts be concealed from its rightful owner. (Williams v. Superior Court, 81 Cal. App. 3d 330, 146 Cal. Rptr. 311, 320 (2d Dist. 1978).)
			When the defendant denies knowledge of possession and requests a special instruction on knowledge, the court must give such an instruction to avoid reversible error. (People v. Speaks, 120 Cal. App. 3d 36, 38–39, 174 Cal. Rptr. 65, 65–66 (4th Dist. 1981).)
			Theft is not a lesser included offense of receiving stolen property. (In re Greg F., 159 Cal. App. 3d 466, 469, 205 Cal. Rptr. 614, 615 (2d Dist. 1984).)
			Penal Code § 496(a) also provides: “A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.”
			A defendant can be found guilty of burglary and receiving stolen property (the subject of the burglary). (People v. Landis, 51 Cal. App. 4th 1247, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 641 (2d Dist. 1996); People v. Bernal, 22 Cal. App. 4th 1455, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 839 (4th Dist. 1994).)
			Evidence of intoxication is admissible to show absence of knowledge and if the evidence is sufficient, defendant is entitled to instructions thereon. (People v. Reyes, 52 Cal. App. 4th 975, 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d 39 (4th Dist. 1997).) The fact that defendant claims he or she was the thief of the stolen property is not a defense to receiving stolen property. (People v. Reyes, supra, pp. 986–988, 61 Cal. Rptr. 2d at pp. 45–46 (1997).)
			In People v. Allen, 21 Cal. 4th 846, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 279, 984 P.2d 486 (1999), the court held that a defendant may be prosecuted and convicted both of burglary and of violating Penal Code § 496 with respect to property stolen in the same burglary. The defendant's remedy is Penal Code § 654 if applicable.
			A defendant convicted under Vehicle Code § 10851 for unlawfully taking a vehicle with intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession has suffered a theft conviction and may not also be convicted under § 496(a) of receiving the same vehicle as stolen property. Unlawful driving of a vehicle under Vehicle Code § 10851 is not a form of theft when the driving occurs or continues after the theft is complete (i.e., post-theft driving), and does not preclude a conviction for receiving the same vehicle as stolen property (People v. Garza, 35 Cal. 4th 866, 28 Cal. Rptr. 3d 335, 111 P.3d 310 (2005).) See CALJIC 17.04.
			When receiving stolen property and Vehicle Code § 10851 are charged in the same information and may apply to the same conduct, use CALJIC 17.04.
			A defendant cannot be convicted of both carjacking and receiving stolen property, when the property in question is the vehicle taken during the carjacking. People v. Magallanes (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 529, 92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751.
			This spring 2019 revision allows for the jury to determine whether the property’s value exceeds $950, or whether the defendant has a prior conviction by way of special allegations.

Sysop: /* Multiple counts */

2020-06-14T06:02:35Z

Multiple counts

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:02, 14 June 2020
Line 11:		Line 11:
	This rule against multiple convictions is also applicable to circumstances where the only evidence of theft is based on concealment. (See People v. Moses, 217 Cal. App. 3d 1245, 1256, 266 Cal. Rptr. 538 (3d Dist. 1990).) The Moses court observed that where the wrongful retention of property makes the property “stolen,” the record must demonstrate some other wrongful detention before the retainer is further guilty of “concealing” that which had been wrongfully retained in the first place. The subsequent acts of concealment must be so “completely divorced” from the original misappropriation as to “constitute an independent course of conduct.” Otherwise, the retainer cannot be convicted of concealing stolen property and the jury should be so instructed.		This rule against multiple convictions is also applicable to circumstances where the only evidence of theft is based on concealment. (See People v. Moses, 217 Cal. App. 3d 1245, 1256, 266 Cal. Rptr. 538 (3d Dist. 1990).) The Moses court observed that where the wrongful retention of property makes the property “stolen,” the record must demonstrate some other wrongful detention before the retainer is further guilty of “concealing” that which had been wrongfully retained in the first place. The subsequent acts of concealment must be so “completely divorced” from the original misappropriation as to “constitute an independent course of conduct.” Otherwise, the retainer cannot be convicted of concealing stolen property and the jury should be so instructed.

			Under Pen. Code, § 496(a) a defendant may not be convicted of stealing and receiving the same property. When a defendant is convicted of both offenses, the theft conviction takes precedence regardless of which offense carries the greater penalty and the receiving conviction must be dismissed (People v. Ceja, 49 Cal. 4th 1, 108 Cal. Rptr. 3d 568, 229 P.3d 995 (2010)).

	==Possession==		==Possession==

Sysop at 06:00, 14 June 2020

2020-06-14T06:00:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:00, 14 June 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Mandatory rebuttable presumption: In People v. Roder, 33 Cal. 3d 491, 498, 502–504, 189 Cal. Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302 (1983), the Supreme Court examined the Pen. Code, § 496 presumption of guilty knowledge imposed on secondhand dealers of property. The court concluded the presumption was a “mandatory, rebuttable presumption” that limited the jury's freedom to assess independently all of the prosecution evidence in determining whether the facts of the case established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court held that the jury instruction, although phrased as a rebuttable presumption, was unconstitutional where the actual instruction was ambiguous, and jurors could reasonably have interpreted it as relieving the prosecution of part of its burden of proof.		Mandatory rebuttable presumption: In People v. Roder, 33 Cal. 3d 491, 498, 502–504, 189 Cal. Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302 (1983), the Supreme Court examined the Pen. Code, § 496 presumption of guilty knowledge imposed on secondhand dealers of property. The court concluded the presumption was a “mandatory, rebuttable presumption” that limited the jury's freedom to assess independently all of the prosecution evidence in determining whether the facts of the case established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court held that the jury instruction, although phrased as a rebuttable presumption, was unconstitutional where the actual instruction was ambiguous, and jurors could reasonably have interpreted it as relieving the prosecution of part of its burden of proof.


			==Multiple counts==
			Multiple counts: Where a defendant receives multiple articles of stolen property at the same time, there is only one offense of receiving stolen property. If, on the other hand, the evidence shows that items of stolen property have been received by the defendant on different occasions, multiple convictions are permitted (People v. Mitchell, 164 Cal. App. 4th 442, 462, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 855 (3d Dist. 2008)).
			Multiple convictions for theft and receiving: A defendant cannot be convicted of both stealing and receiving the same property (People v. Jaramillo, 16 Cal. 3d 752, 757, 129 Cal. Rptr. 306, 548 P.2d 706 (1976)). The Legislature amended Pen. Code, § 496(a) in 1992 by adding: “A principal in the actual theft of the property may be convicted pursuant to this section. However, no person may be convicted both pursuant to this section and of the theft of the same property.” Our Supreme Court interpreted this language to prohibit “dual convictions of both an offense pursuant to this section [§ 496]—viz., buying, receiving, concealing, withholding, or selling stolen property—and the offense of stealing the same property …. The sentence thus authorizes a conviction for receiving stolen property even though the defendant also stole the property, provided he has not actually been convicted of the theft” (People v. Allen, 21 Cal. 4th 846, 857, 89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 279, 984 P.2d 486 (1999)).
			This rule against multiple convictions is also applicable to circumstances where the only evidence of theft is based on concealment. (See People v. Moses, 217 Cal. App. 3d 1245, 1256, 266 Cal. Rptr. 538 (3d Dist. 1990).) The Moses court observed that where the wrongful retention of property makes the property “stolen,” the record must demonstrate some other wrongful detention before the retainer is further guilty of “concealing” that which had been wrongfully retained in the first place. The subsequent acts of concealment must be so “completely divorced” from the original misappropriation as to “constitute an independent course of conduct.” Otherwise, the retainer cannot be convicted of concealing stolen property and the jury should be so instructed.

Sysop at 05:58, 14 June 2020

2020-06-14T05:58:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:58, 14 June 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:

	A person can't be convicted of receiving stolen property and theft of the same property. People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 1		A person can't be convicted of receiving stolen property and theft of the same property. People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 1


			Mandatory rebuttable presumption: In People v. Roder, 33 Cal. 3d 491, 498, 502–504, 189 Cal. Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302 (1983), the Supreme Court examined the Pen. Code, § 496 presumption of guilty knowledge imposed on secondhand dealers of property. The court concluded the presumption was a “mandatory, rebuttable presumption” that limited the jury's freedom to assess independently all of the prosecution evidence in determining whether the facts of the case established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the court held that the jury instruction, although phrased as a rebuttable presumption, was unconstitutional where the actual instruction was ambiguous, and jurors could reasonably have interpreted it as relieving the prosecution of part of its burden of proof.


Line 14:		Line 17:
	*People v. Scott (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 231, 234 [238 P.2d 659] [two or more persons may jointly possess property].		*People v. Scott (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 231, 234 [238 P.2d 659] [two or more persons may jointly possess property].

	==Jury Instructions		==Jury Instructions==

	===CALCRIM 1750===		===CALCRIM 1750===

	===CALJIC 14.50===		===CALJIC 14.50===

Sysop at 05:53, 14 June 2020

2020-06-14T05:53:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:53, 14 June 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:

	A person can't be convicted of receiving stolen property and theft of the same property. People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 1		A person can't be convicted of receiving stolen property and theft of the same property. People v. Ceja (2010) 49 Cal. 4th 1


	==Possession==		==Possession==
Line 12:		Line 13:
	*see People v. Gatlin (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 31, 44–45 [257 Cal.Rptr. 171] [constructive possession means knowingly having the right of control over the property directly or through another]		*see People v. Gatlin (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 31, 44–45 [257 Cal.Rptr. 171] [constructive possession means knowingly having the right of control over the property directly or through another]
	*People v. Scott (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 231, 234 [238 P.2d 659] [two or more persons may jointly possess property].		*People v. Scott (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 231, 234 [238 P.2d 659] [two or more persons may jointly possess property].

			==Jury Instructions

			===CALCRIM 1750===

			===CALJIC 14.50===