Receiving Stolen Property: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| 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=== | ||
Revision as of 05:58, 14 June 2020
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.
Possession
From CALCRIM 1750:
[To receive property means to take possession and control of it. Mere presence near or access to the property is not enough.] [Two or more people can possess the property at the same time.] [A person does not have to actually hold or touch something to possess it. It is enough if the person has [control over it] [or] [the right to control it], either personally or through another person.]
The annotation lists the following cases regarding possession and control:
- People v. Land (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 220, 223–224 [35 Cal.Rptr.2d 544]
- People v. Zyduck (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 334, 336 [75 Cal.Rptr. 616]
- 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].