Theft
Intent
Jesus O., supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 868 [no requirement to intend to steal specific property]; People v. Davis (1998) 19 Cal.4th 301, 305, 317-219 [theft crimes generally require only the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession of property].
Value
Price listings on retailer's website and price tags in brick-and-mortar store were nonhearsay circumstantial evidence of fair market value of adjustable dumbbells, and thus were admissible in prosecution for grand theft based on allegations that defendants stole 15 boxes of dumbbells; advertised prices could be considered by jury as circumstantial evidence of price at which willing sellers and willing buyers would consummate transaction in marketplace.
People v. Portillo, 91 Cal. App. 5th 577, 308 Cal. Rptr. 3d 500 (2023), review filed (June 21, 2023)
Defendant contends his conviction must be reversed because the prosecution failed to establish that he knew, or had any reason to know, the contents of the money bag at the time he took it. No such knowledge however, is necessary to sustain the conviction. What is important here is that defendant intended to steal the bag whatever its contents. The evidence clearly establishes that intent. It is not necessary that he knew its contents in advance. The essential elements *478 of larceny are: The taking and asportation of property; from the possession of another; without his consent; and with the intent, without claim or right to wholly deprive the owner or possessor, of possession thereof. (People v. Williams, 73 Cal.App.2d 154, 157, 166 P.2d 63.) ‘When the money, * * * or personal property taken is of a value exceeding two hundred ($200) * * * then the same shall constitute grand theft.’ (Pen.Code § 487, subd. (1)).
People v. Earle, 222 Cal. App. 2d 476, 477–78, 35 Cal. Rptr. 265, 266 (Ct. App. 1963)
Robbery
Carjacking
People v. Duran (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1371
(1) as a matter of apparent first impression, a “felonious taking” of a motor vehicle, as element of carjacking, can occur when the victim remains with the vehicle; (2) carjacking was necessarily included offense within kidnapping-for-carjacking charge;
Defendant, by ordering motorist to drive at gunpoint, satisfied the dominion and control requirement for a “felonious taking” of the vehicle, as element of carjacking, though the motorist and passengers remained in the vehicle. West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 215(a).
Defendant, by entering vehicle, threatening to kill driver and passengers if driver did not take him where he wanted to go, telling driver, at gunpoint, when to speed up and slow down, when to get on the freeway and when to get off, and where and when to turn, committed kidnapping for carjacking.