Error and/or relief
The jury found the defendant guilty of grand theft for his unlawful killing of a mountain lion that had been part of a study conducted by the a state educational institution. The conviction for grand theft must be reversed because there was no substantial evidence that the educational institution owned the mountain lion. We reverse defendant’s conviction for grand theft.
First Holding:
An essential element for grand theft was that the educational institution had a proprietary or possessory interest in the mountain lion. Although wild animals are collectively owned by the people of California generally, the state does not have a possessory interest in wild animals for purposes of the theft statutes.
Authority:
CIV 656 [Animals wild by nature are the subjects of ownership, while living, only when on the land of the person claiming them, or when tamed, or taken and held in possession, or disabled and immediately pursued.]
People v. Brady (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 954, 957. [The well-settled rule in California is that no one holds a personal property right in wild animals or fish unless captured, tamed or otherwise reduced to possession.]
Second Holding:
The educational institution’s temporary capture and release of the mountain lion into the wild with a tracking collar did not vest the educational institution with an interest in the mountain lion protectable by the theft statutes of this state
Authority:
Moerman v. State of California (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 452, 457-458 [state did not own for purposes of inverse condemnation tule elk captured, tagged, relocated, and monitored as part of state program]