Error and/or relief
There was insufficient evidence to support the allegation that the minor received stolen property in violation of section 496d(a) (pertaining to the vehicle in which he was a passenger).
First Holding:
The same standard governs review of the sufficiency of the evidence in adult criminal cases and juvenile cases. We examine the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it discloses substantial evidence—evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—such that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
While substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, such inferences may not be based on suspicion alone, or on imagination, or speculation.
Authority:
In re Amanda A. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 537, 545-546
In re Matthew A. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 537, 540
People v. Grant (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 323, 330
Second Holding:
To sustain the petition on the receiving a stolen vehicle count, the People had to prove: (1) the motor vehicle was stolen; (2) the minor knew it was stolen; and (3) the minor received, concealed, or withheld the stolen vehicle from its owner.
Authority:
People v. Land (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 220, 223-224
In re Anthony J. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 718, 728
Third Holding:
Receipt, or possession of stolen property, may be actual or constructive and need not be exclusive. Physical possession is also not a requirement. It is sufficient if the defendant acquires a measure of control or dominion over the stolen property.
Constructive possession occurs when the defendant maintains control or a right to control the property; possession may be imputed when the property is found in a place that is immediately and exclusively accessible to the defendant and subject to his or her dominion and control, or to the joint dominion and control of the defendant and another.
Authority:
People v. Land (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 220, 223-224 [construing similar language in context of sec. 496, general receiving stolen property statute]
People v. Rushing (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 618, 621-622
Fourth Holding:
Possession may be established through circumstantial evidence and resulting reasonable inferences. However, mere presence near the stolen property, or access to the location where the stolen property is found is not sufficient evidence of possession, standing alone, to sustain a conviction for receiving stolen property. Something more must be shown to support inferring of dominion and control. The necessary additional circumstances may, in some fact contexts, be rather slight.
Authority:
People v. Land (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 220, 224
People v. Myles (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 423, 429 [evidence the defendant was passenger in car and found standing close to car trunk containing stolen goods insufficient to infer possession for conviction of receiving stolen property]
People v. Zyduck (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 334, 336 [evidence defendant was passenger in car with stolen chain saw in rear seat insufficient evidence to infer his possession of stolen item]
Fifth Holding:
The car was stolen and the minor knew the car was stolen, but there is no substantial evidence that the minor possessed or aided in withholding the car from its owner.
While it is true that conscious possession of recently stolen property itself raises a strong inference that the possessor knew the property was stolen, the issue here is whether, as a mere passenger, he actually or constructively possessed the stolen car as a section 496d conviction requires.
Aiding and abetting the commission of a crime requires some affirmative action. Mere presence at the scene of a crime which does not itself assist its commission or mere knowledge that a crime is being committed and the failure to prevent it does not amount to aiding and abetting.
There was no evidence to show the minor directed the driver to speed away from the pursuing officers or otherwise directed any movement of the Infiniti as a passenger. There was no evidence that the minor had an opportunity to get out of the car before the traffic stop, or once the driver sped away from the officers.
The record is also devoid of any evidence regarding the minor’s relationship to any of the other occupants of the car, and the gang expert conceded the minor had no documented gang-related contacts apart from this one incident.
Absent evidence showing the nature and extent of the relationship between the minor and the other occupants, or the circumstances of the minor’s affirmative actions beyond simply running from the Infiniti, we conclude the evidence established nothing more than that the minor was a passenger in the stolen car, but not that he aided and abetted in the vehicle theft or in withholding the stolen vehicle from its rightful owner.
Authority:
People v. O’Dell (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1574
People v. Anderson (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 414, 420-421
People v. Partee (2020) 8 Cal.5th 860, 868
People v. Pettie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 23, 57
People v. Sedillo (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1039 [presence at crime scene, by itself, is insufficient to establish aiding and abetting; relevant factors for determining aider and abettor liability may include presence, companionship, and conduct before and after offense]