Section 1750 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

•
Concealment. Williams v. Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 330, 343–344
[146 Cal.Rptr. 311].
•
General Intent Required. People v. Wielograf (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 488, 494
[161 Cal.Rptr. 680] [general intent crime]; but see People v. Reyes (1997) 52
Cal.App.4th 975, 985 [61 Cal.Rptr.2d 39] [knowledge element is a “specific
mental state”].
•
Knowledge Element. People v. Reyes (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 975, 985 [61
Cal.Rptr.2d 39].
•
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].
•
Stolen Property. People v. Kunkin (1973) 9 Cal.3d 245, 250 [107 Cal.Rptr. 184,
507 P.2d 1392] [theft]; see, e.g., People v. Candiotto (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 348,
349 [6 Cal.Rptr. 876] [burglary]; People v. Siegfried (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 489,
493 [57 Cal.Rptr. 423] [robbery].
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES
•
Attempted Receiving Stolen Property. Pen. Code, §§ 664, 496(d); People v.
Rojas (1961) 55 Cal.2d 252, 258 [10 Cal.Rptr. 465, 358 P.2d 921] [stolen goods
recovered by police were no longer “stolen”]; People v. Moss (1976) 55
Cal.App.3d 179, 183 [127 Cal.Rptr. 454] [antecedent theft not a necessary
element].
Theft by appropriation of lost property (Pen. Code, § 485) is not a necessarily
included offense of receiving stolen property. (In re Greg F. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d
466, 469 [205 Cal.Rptr. 614].)
RELATED ISSUES
Defense of Voluntary Intoxication or Mental Disease
Though receiving stolen property is a general intent crime, one element of the
offense is knowledge that the property was stolen, a specific mental state. With
regard to the element of knowledge, receiving stolen property is a “specific intent
crime” as that term is used in Penal Code sections 29.4(b) and 28(a). (People v.
Reyes (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 975, 985 [61 Cal.Rptr.2d 39].) Therefore, the
defendant should have the opportunity to introduce evidence and request instructions
regarding the lack of requisite knowledge. (Id. at p. 986; see People v. Mendoza
(1998) 18 Cal.4th 1114, 1131 [77 Cal.Rptr.2d 428, 959 P.2d 735]; but see People v.
Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, 96–97 [104 Cal.Rptr.2d 738, 18 P.3d 660] (conc. opn.
of Brown, J.) [criticizing Mendoza and Reyes as wrongly transmuting a knowledge
BURGLARY AND RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY
CALCRIM No. 1750
1147