Receiving Stolen Property

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.

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.

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].