Have you been accused of a crime?
Call for a free consultation 24/7 toll-free:
(888) 744-7730

California Penal Code § [Section] 215(a) – Carjacking

California Penal Code § [Section] 215(a) – Carjacking

California Penal Code [CPC] §215(a)Carjacking – Penal Code Section 215 makes it illegal to take a motor vehicle from another person, or from that person's immediate presence, against his or her will. You must intend to deprive possession to the person possessing the vehicle and you must take the vehicle using force or fear.

Carjacking is punished by as many as nine years in a state prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both a prison sentence and a fine. Carjacking is also punished as a form of violent felony under California's “Three Strikes”system. A “strike” can result in sentence enhancement. In the event you receive three “strikes,” you'll serve a minimum of 25 years in state prison.

What Does California Penal Code §215(a) [Carjacking] Prohibit?

In sum, to be guilty of Carjacking under CPC §215(a), it must be shown that:

  • You took a vehicle that wasn't yours; AND,
  • It was taken from someone who possessed it or was its passenger; AND,
  • You took it against that person's will; AND,
  • You used force or fear to take it or prevent resistance; AND,
  • You intended to deprive the person of the vehicle.

Defining “Carjacking” Under California Penal Code §215(a)

To convict you under CPC §215(a), the prosecutor must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:             

  • Took A Motor Vehicle: You took[1] a motor vehicle[2] that was not your own; AND,
  • Immediate Presence: The vehicle was taken from the immediate presence[3] of a person who possessed[4] it or was its passenger; AND,
  • Will: The vehicle was taken against that person's will;[5] AND,
  • Force Or Fear: You used force or fear[6] to take the vehicle or to prevent that person from resisting; AND,
  • Intent To Deprive: When you used force or fear to take the vehicle, you intended to deprive the person of temporary or permanent possession of the vehicle.

Note: Your “intent to take the vehicle must have been formed before or during the time [you] used force or fear.” Thus, if you didn't “form this required intent until after using the force or fear, then [you] did not commit carjacking.”[7]

Example: Defendant Dale gets into an argument with Victim Vern at a bar. Vern leaves. Dale follows Vern into the parking lot, haranguing Vern all the while. Vern tries to escape by leaping into his car. This makes Dale even angrier. He pulls Vern from the vehicle. They continue fighting for several minutes. The car door is left open all the while. Finally, Dale, infuriated, leaps into Vern's driver's seat, drives off, and yells, “Your car is mine now!” Vern calls police. Dale is arrested soon after and charged under §215(a). Should Dale be convicted?

Conclusion: Dale stole Vern's car, as evidenced by Dale's getting in the car, driving it and then saying he was taking possession of it from Vern. This is Grand Theft Auto (CPC §487). The vehicle was taken from Vern's immediate presence and against Vern's will. This is evidenced by Dale's pulling Vern from the car. However, Dale had to use force at the time of taking the vehicle from Vern. There was a gap of “several minutes” between Dale pulling Vern from the vehicle and Dale's forming the intent to take the vehicle. The absence of this sole element means that the judge or jury must find in Dale's favor. But Dale also didn't have to use force to gain entry to the vehicle when he did decide to take it; the door was left open while he and Vern argued after he pulled from the car. Dale, therefore, should be acquitted.

Penalties For Carjacking Under CPC §215(a)

As stated previously, Carjacking is punishable in California with a term of up to nine (9) years in a state prison,[8] a fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars), or both a fine and imprisonment.[9] However, the offense is considered a “violent felony”[10] as well as a “serious felony.”[11] As such, Carjacking is subject to “Three Strikes” sentence enhancement. If you receive three “strikes” on your record, you will serve a minimum of twenty-five (25) years in a state prison.[12]

Additionally, Carjacking penalties may be enhanced under California's Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act. If you commit a carjacking “for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members,” you face a life sentence in a state prison in addition to your basic Carjacking term.[13]

Penalties may also be enhanced under the “10-20-Life ‘Use A Gun and You Are Done” law. The statute provides that using a gun during a carjacking adds ten (10) years to your sentence, while firing the gun adds twenty (20) years. If you use a gun to injure someone, however, you will receive a sentence of at least twenty-five (25) years. This time is to be served in addition to your underlying Carjacking term.[14]  

Defenses To California Penal Code §215(a) – Carjacking

Three common defenses against a charge of Carjacking under CPC §215(a) are:

You Had Consent To Take The Vehicle

Example: Defendant Danni takes Victim Vinton's truck after Vinton tells her to use the vehicle to drive to a grocery store. He gives her the keys. But Vinton's Girlfriend has no idea about the arrangement when she sees Danni take the truck and Vinton isn't available to explain the situation. Girlfriend assumes that Danni has stolen the vehicle. She calls police and has Danni arrested for Carjacking. Danni insists that - while she might be responsible for Grand Theft – she's innocent under CPC §215(a). Should Danni be convicted or is she correct?

Conclusion: Danni took a vehicle that wasn't hers. This is, however, the only element of the charge present on these facts. Danni didn't take the vehicle from anyone's immediate presence. Since Danni used keys to get into the truck, we also know that she didn't use force or fear. She was only driving the truck to a grocery store and back, and, therefore, had no intention of depriving anyone of its possession. (Danni is innocent of Grand Theft Auto for the same reason.) But perhaps the most important fact is that Vinton gave Danni permission to take the vehicle. Carjacking always requires that the vehicle be taken against the victim will. But Vinton gave Danni permission to take his truck. Danni, it follows, should be acquitted. She had consent to take the vehicle.

You Were The Victim Of Mistaken Identity

Example: Defendant Damian is arrested after a report is made of a man matching his height and skin color committing a carjacking. The man was allegedly wearing a red jacket at the time of the crime. When Damian is arrested, however, neither a jacket nor the stolen vehicle is found in his possession. He insists he has been mistakenly identified. Damian also has witnesses who'll attest to his whereabouts at the time of the crime. Police nonetheless charge him under CPC §215(a). Should Damian be convicted?

Conclusion: Damian was arrested based on scant details (his height, a jacket, and his skin color). Thus, it's no surprise that police didn't find the stolen property or the jacket the real offender was wearing; they acted on facts that were so vague, it was almost assured they'd be mistaken when making an arrest. Damian, furthermore, has an alibi. “[W]itnesses will attest to his whereabouts[.]” These facts suggest strongly that police have arrested the wrong man. Since the information used to arrest Damian was extremely vague, and since he possessed neither the identifying article of clothing nor the stolen property, Damian should be acquitted. He was the victim of mistaken identity.  

You Didn't Use Force Or Fear

Example: Defendant Deena takes Victim Val's car after flirting with Val and convincing Val that she's romantically interested in him. She declares the car to be hers when asked about it. Val later discovers that Deena was lying in order to get possession of the car. Humiliated, he reports Deena to police. They arrest her for Carjacking. Deena insists that she simply can't be guilty of the crime on these facts. Is Deena correct or should she be convicted? 

Conclusion: Deena took a vehicle that wasn't hers. She intended on keeping it permanently, which we can infer from Deena declaring the car “to be hers[.]” Irrespective of whether she took it from Val's immediate presence, or against his will (which wasn't the case at the time), Deena didn't use force or fear to get possession of the vehicle. Deena tricked Val into giving her the car owing to her romantic advances. Thus, an element of the crime is missing. The absence of even one element of a criminal charge means that a court in this country must find in favor of the defendant. Therefore, since an element can't be proven, Deena is correct. She should be acquitted because she didn't use force or fear.   

Related Offenses

Note: The crimes below are described generally as “related” because they're frequently charged with CPC §215(a) and/or have common elements the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The California Penal Code includes several offenses related to Carjacking: Robbery (CPC §211), Grand Theft Auto (CPC §487(d)(1)), Joyriding (CPC §499(a)), Burglary (CPC §459), Kidnapping During Carjacking (CPC §209.5(a)), Battery (CPC §242), Receiving Stolen Property (CPC §496(a)) and Assault Causing Great Bodily Injury (CPC §245(a)(1)).

Robbery

Robbery (CPC §211) involves use force or fear to take property from another person with the intent of not returning it. The crime is punished in degrees. Robbery is linked to Carjacking because both crimes require fear or force to make the victim provide something valuable without the victim's consent.

Robbery is considered a “violent felony” under state law.[15] Thus, it's subject to sentence enhancement under California's “Three Strikes” system. Getting three “strikes” on your record will result in a minimum of twenty-five years in state prison.[16]

If you're convicted of first-degree Robbery, the penalty, without additional enhancement, may be:

  • A term of up to nine (9) years in a state prison;[17] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[18]

Note: The intent to take property must have been formed before or during the use of force or fear.

Further information can be found in the Santa Clarita Robbery Lawyer section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. All calls go directly to a lawyer. We guarantee it.

California Jury Instructions – Robbery

To convict you under CPC §211, the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You used force or fear to take property that was in the presence of another person. You took the property against that person's will. Finally, you intended to remove the property from the person's possession long enough that the person wouldn't enjoy a major part of its value.

Example: Defendant Davey, wielding a knife, approaches Victim Veronica one night in Supermarket parking lot. He steals her grocery bags, which are filled with various greens, then takes them home and leaves them overnight on a table. The greens are ruined. Reconsidering his decision, Davey returns to Supermarket the following morning, presents the bags to Manager, tells Manager what occurred, and asks Manager to return the groceries to Veronica. Manager instead calls police. Davey is arrested and charged under CPC §211. He insists that he can't be convicted because he returned the stolen property; therefore, Davey says, a robbery couldn't have occurred. Is Davey correct?

Conclusion: Davey used force (a knife) to take Veronica's property from her presence and against her will. These are elements of the crime. The sole remaining issue is whether Davey denied Veronica a major part of the groceries' value. It's essential to note that he stole greens – perishable items which, if left out, would likely ruin. Denial of the value of the groceries takes on more than form, therefore: first, by disposing of them in some way; and, second, by permitting them to spoil. Davey committed the second act. This is true even though he had second thoughts and returned the groceries. Davey still fulfilled every element of the crime. He is, it follows, incorrect. Davey should be convicted of the crime.

Grand Theft Auto

California's statute criminalizing Grand Theft Auto (CPC §487(d)(1)) applies whenever an automobile is taken without consent from its rightful owner. Grand Theft Auto does not require the use of fear or force. You must, however, move the property and keep it for some period.

Since California punishes Theft in two degrees (Grand and Petty), the facts surrounding your case will determine the severity of the charge. Depending on the particulars, the prosecutor can choose to charge you with a Misdemeanor or a Felony. This makes Grand Theft Auto a “wobbler”[19] crime. Grand Theft Auto is related to Carjacking because both focus on illegally taking automobiles.

If you're convicted of the Felony form of Grand Theft Auto, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to three (3) years in a state prison;[20] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[21]

Note: Grand theft involving a firearm is considered a “serious felony,”[22] making it punishable under the state's “Three Strikes” system. If you amass three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve at least twenty-five years in a state prison.[23]

You can find more information in the California Grand Theft Lawyer section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer - guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Grand Theft Auto

To convict you under CPC §487(d)(1),[24] the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You took someone else's automobile without the owner's permission. The vehicle was worth more than $950. When you took the automobile, you intended on taking it permanently or removing it for long enough that the owner would lose a major portion of its value or enjoyment of it. Finally, you moved the vehicle and kept it for some amount of time.

Example: Defendant Dale sees Victim Vincente restoring an old car in Vincente's backyard. He has restored the car to working order. When Vincente goes on vacation for a week, Dale decides to take, and keep, the vehicle. Vincente returns a day later, finds the car missing, investigates and soon discovers that Dale has it. Vincente then reports Dale for stealing a vehicle worth almost $800 before taxes and $900 after taxes. Dale is arrested and charged with Grand Theft Auto. He insists that he isn't guilty under CPC §487(d)(1). Is Dale correct?

Conclusion: Dale willfully took a motor vehicle from Vincente's property. Since Vincente wasn't present at the time, we can assume Dale took the vehicle without Vincente's permission. He also intended on keeping the car for himself. Dale, finally, kept the vehicle for a day (“some amount of time,” in other words). These are elements of the crime. But the car had to be worth more than $950 for Dale's crime to be described as a grand theft. Even after taxes, the car was worth only $900. Therefore, Dale committed a Petty Theft[25] by stealing a motor vehicle worth less than $950. Although Dale is incorrect, he shouldn't be convicted.   

Joyriding

California's statute on Joyriding (CPC §499(a)) applies whenever anyone previously convicted of violating California Vehicle Code [CVC] §10851(a) [Unlawful Taking or Tampering with Vehicle] or CPC §487(d)(1) [Grand Theft Auto] (see above), having served a term in punishment, is later convicted of a violation of CPC §499(b) involving a vehicle or vessel. The crime is related to Carjacking because an act of Joyriding can blossom into a Carjacking charge, depending on the facts of your case.

Section 499(b) says that if you've been charged at least twice under the Section and you've been convicted of taking a vehicle or vessel, having served time, you can be sentenced to state or county prison. This makes §499(a) a “wobbler” [26] offense; you can be charged with either a Misdemeanor or a Felony, depending on the unique facts of your case. If you're convicted of the Felony form of Joyriding, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to three (3) years in a state prison;[27] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[28]

Note: CPC §499(a) applies only to the theft of bicycles, motorboats, or other vessels.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Joyriding

To convict you under CPC §499(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You were previously convicted of violating CVC §10851(a) or CPC §487(d)(1) and served a jail or prison term. You were later convicted of a violation of §499(b), involving a vehicle or vessel, having already been charged at least twice under that Section and having been convicted of taking a vehicle or vessel.

Example: Defendant Dick takes Victim Vern's boat one afternoon, without Vern's permission, and sails it around a lake. Vern reports Dick, who's arrested and charged under CVC §10851(a) for taking the vessel. He's subsequently convicted. Judge, however, decides not to sentence Dick to jail time, instead giving Dick a probationary term. Dick later takes the same boat from Vern and is charged with Joyriding under CPC §499(a). He claims that he can't be convicted – even though Dick admits to taking the boat a second time. Should Dick be convicted or is he correct?

Conclusion: Dick had previously been convicted of taking Vern's vessel without Vern's permission. He later took the same vessel, which qualifies under the statute the same as the first time he stole it. These are elements of the offense. But Dick had to have been charged twice under §499(b), and he had to have served a jail term, to be convicted under CPC §499(a). He has only been charged once under CPC §499(a) and never served time for his initial conviction. Therefore, while he admits that he's liable for committing another crime (presumably under CVC §10851(a)), Dick should not be convicted of Joyriding.

Burglary

Penal Code §459 creates the crime of Burglary, which occurs any time someone enters a building with the intent to commit Theft or a felony inside the structure. The crime is related to Carjacking because entering a structure in order to commit Carjacking can give rise to a Burglary charge in the same trial.

Burglaries inside homes, vessels, floating homes or trailers are first-degree burglaries. All other forms are in the second degree. This makes Burglary a “wobbler” [29] offense. If you're convicted of Burglary in the first degree, the penalty can be:

  • A term of up to six (6) years in a state prison;[30] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[31]

Note:  You must form the intent commit Burglary at or before the time of entering the structure.

More information can be found in the Burglary Lawyer section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County.  An attorney will take your call. That's guaranteed.

California Jury Instructions – Burglary

To convict you under CPC §459, the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You entered a building, a locked vehicle, or a structure intending to commit some form of theft or a form of felony, or you entered a noncommercial establishment or a commercial establishment outside business hours with the same intent. If property was taken, it was worth more than $950.

Example: Defendant Dominica sees Victim Veda's $350 baseball glove laying atop a worktable inside Veda's open garage. Seeing no one about, Dominica enters the garage and takes the glove in hand. Only then does she see the keys to Veda's $80,000 car, which are hanging from a hook. Dominica changes plans and steals both the glove and the car. When she's arrested several hours later, she's charged with Burglary under the theory that she entered Veda's residence and committed Grand Theft Auto, a felony offense. Is Dominica guilty on these facts?    

Conclusion: Dominica intentionally stole a vehicle worth well over $950 after entering Veda's garage. Were that all that's required for conviction under CPC §459, she would be guilty. But Dominica didn't enter the garage with the intent of taking property worth more than $950. She instead intended on stealing a glove worth a mere $350, entered the garage, and then formed the intent to steal the car. Thus, while Dominica can be found guilty of multiple counts of Theft (both Grand and Petty), she is not guilty of committing Burglary.   

Kidnapping During Carjacking

Kidnapping During Carjacking (CPC §209.5(a)) involves kidnapping another person [who is not a principal in the commission of the carjacking] to facilitate a carjacking. The law requires that the movement of the victim be “more than merely brief and incidental to the commission of the carjacking. The movement must also have increased the risk of physical or psychological harm to the [victim] beyond that necessarily present in the carjacking.”[32] The crime is related to Carjacking because, depending on the distance moved, a Carjacking can easily produce a Kidnapping charge in the same trial.

If you're convicted of Kidnapping During Carjacking, the penalty may be:

  • A term of life in a state prison (with the possibility of parole);[33] AND,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars).[34]

Note: Kidnapping will be prosecuted as a “violent felony”[35] or a “serious felony,”[36] depending on the facts on your case. Thus Kidnapping is always punishable under California's “Three Strikes” system. If you accrue three “strikes” on your record, you'll serve a minimum of twenty-five years in state prison.[37]

More information can be found in the Kidnapping section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County.  A lawyer will take your call. That is guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Kidnapping During Carjacking

To convict you under CPC §209.5(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

During a carjacking, you took, held, or detained another person by using force or by instilling reasonable fear. You moved the other person or made that person move a substantial distance from the carjacking. You moved or caused the other person to move to facilitate the carjacking, or to help yourself escape, or to prevent the other person from sounding an alarm. The person moved was not one of the carjackers and didn't consent to the movement. Finally, you didn't actually and reasonably believe that the other person consented to movement.

Example: Defendant Dee uses a gun to carjack Victim Vince's SUV one night in a parking lot adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Dee, knowing that several police officers live in the neighborhood, ties Vince's hands behind his back, puts tape over his mouth, and shoves him into the back seat. She drives a mile from the lot before being spotted by police. Dee takes them on a rollicking chase that lasts more than an hour. Vince sustains bruises and breaks an arm during the pursuit. In the end, Dee is arrested for crimes including Kidnapping During Carjacking under §209.5(a). Dee insists that she couldn't have kidnapped Vince because she only moved him into SUV the back seat. Is Dee correct or should she be convicted?

Conclusion: Dee used force (a firearm) to move Vince into the back seat of the SUV. She did so, we can presume on the facts, to prevent him from informing neighborhood police about the crime. Vince was not a carjacker himself, nor did he assent to being moved. Given that she bound Vince's hands, and covered his mouth, it is, furthermore, fair to assume that Dee didn't actually and reasonably believe Vince consented to being moved. These are elements of the crime. The sole remaining question is whether Vince moved a “substantial distance,” something to which Dee alludes when objecting that she only moved Vince into the back seat. It might be argued that being put in the back seat isn't a great enough distance from the scene of the crime. But driving a mile from the scene of the crime could easily be described as a moving a “substantial distance,” while driving an hour's distance would certainly meet the criteria. This is true even though Vince was in the back seat of the SUV the whole time. It should also be remembered that the car chase resulted in Vince being injured in a way exceeding the risk to which he was subjected by the carjacking itself (he suffered bruises and a broken arm), something required for a conviction. Dee, it follows, is incorrect. She should be convicted under CPC §209.5(a).      

Battery

Battery (CPC §242) occurs in California when anyone willfully and unlawfully uses force against another person. The crime is related to Carjacking because Battery often occurs during Carjacking, which allows prosecutors to level charges for both crimes in the same trial.

If you're convicted of Battery, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to six (6) months in a county jail; OR,
  • A fine of up to $1,000 (one-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both imprisonment and a fine.[38]

Note: A slight touch can be enough to commit Battery, if it's done in a rude or angry way. The touching doesn't have to cause pain or injury.

More information can be found in the Battery section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. If you have questions, contact any of the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County.  An attorney will take your call - guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Battery

To convict you under CPC §242, the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:       

You willfully and unlawfully touched someone in a harmful or offensive manner. You didn't act in self-defense, additionally, or in defense of someone else or while reasonably disciplining a child.

Example: Defendant Dominique, having been cut off in traffic by Victim Vern, follows Vern's car into a parking garage, watches him park, waits for him to leave the garage and proceeds to get her revenge by spraying Vern's car with leftover soy sauce packets from her lunch. She adds insult to the injury by writing a nasty message on a napkin and leaving it on Vern's windshield. Then Dominique adds both injury and insult by using a pocketknife to scratch the word “JERK” into the paint on his hood. Vern returns, finds the mess, and summons police. Dominique is identified after police consult security footage. She's found, arrested, and charged under CPC §242. Dominique insists that it isn't illegal to batter an inanimate object like a car. Should she be convicted or is she correct about the situation?    

Conclusion: Dominique willfully and unlawfully touched Vern's car in an offensive manner. She didn't do so in self-defense or in defending someone else, nor was she disciplining a child. These are the elements of the offense. Dominique is incorrect; Battery can occur by touching something inanimate that is so close to a person as to be a sort of extension of that person at the time of contact. This would describe Vern's car – if Vern had been in the car at the time Dominique touched it. This is necessary for a conviction. But the facts make it clear that he wasn't present. Otherwise, it can't be said that Vern was actually touched by Dominique. Therefore, while Dominique is liable for Vandalism, she should not be convicted under CPC §242 - even though she is incorrect about the charge of Battery.

Receiving Stolen Property

California's law on Receiving Stolen Property (CPC §496(a)) applies whenever anyone buys or receives property that's been stolen or extorted, knowing how the property was obtained. The law also applies to concealing, selling, withholding, or aiding someone in concealing, selling, or withholding property from the owner, if you know how it was obtained. Any type of Theft is enough to qualify, but Extortion must involve threats or use of force and the property must've been provided with the victim's consent.

Receiving Stolen Property can be charged as either a Misdemeanor or a Felony, depending on the facts of your case, which makes CPC §496(a) a “wobbler”[39]  crime. The charge is related to Carjacking because goods stolen through carjacking often end up being resold, creating the possibility of Receiving Stolen Property and Carjacking charges being filed in the same matter.

If you're convicted of the Felony form of Receiving Stolen Property, the penalty may be:

  • A term of up to three (3) years in state prison;[40] OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[41]

Note: Receiving property means taking possession and control of it. Nearness or access isn't enough.             

You can find more information in the Property Crimes Defense Attorneys section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer - guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Receiving Stolen Property

To convict you under CPC §496(a), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You bought, received, sold, aided in selling, or concealed or withheld property that had been stolen from its owner or obtained by Extortion. Additionally, when you were involved with the property, you knew it had been stolen or obtained by Extortion.

Example: Defendant Drake goes to Flea Market to purchase an Apple computer case. He approaches a Seller who's hawking authentic cases, as evidenced by the stacks of Apple boxes visible in the back of her plain white van. Seller has cases carefully arranged on a display table. She's also wearing an Apple Store employee shirt. From these facts, Drake concludes he can lawfully purchase a case from Seller. He does so. But Drake is later arrested when it comes to light that Seller is an ex-Apple employee who stole the cases and illegally sold them. Drake's charged under CPC §496(a). Is Drake guilty of the accusation?

Conclusion: Drake bought a case that had been stolen from Apple, the property's rightful owner. This is half the offense. But Drake did not know he was dealing with stolen property. The facts with which he was presented – stacks of Apple boxes, a display table, a seller wearing an Apple Store shirt – wouldn't likely cause a reasonable person to doubt Seller's right to market the cases. Under the circumstances, therefore, there's reason to believe Drake didn't know the property was stolen. He should be acquitted.

Assault Causing Great Bodily Injury

Assault Causing Great Bodily Injury (CPC §245(a)(1)) occurs whenever anyone willfully uses force likely to result in great bodily injury. “Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate harm.”[42] Assault Causing Great Bodily Injury is related to Carjacking because assault is often committed during Carjacking, permitting charges for both in the same trial.  

Penal Code §245(a)(1) is a “wobbler”[43] in California. You can be charged with either a Felony or a Misdemeanor violation of the law, depending on the unique facts of your case. If you're guilty of the Felony form of Assault Causing Great Bodily Injury, the penalty, without enhancement, may be:

  • A term of up to four (4) years in state prison; OR,
  • A fine of up to $10,000 (ten-thousand dollars); OR,
  • Both a fine and imprisonment.[44]

Note: Employing force resulting in great bodily injury is considered a “serious felony.”[45]  Thus, California's “Three Strikes” law applies to a conviction under CPC §245(a)(1). In the event that you receive three “strikes,” you'll be sentenced to at least twenty-five years in a state prison.[46]

You can find more information in the Assault With A Deadly Weapon section of the Kann California Defense Group's website. Feel free to contact the Kann Defense Group offices in Santa Clarita, Ventura, Encino, Pasadena or Los Angeles/Los Angeles County. Your call will go directly to a lawyer. Guaranteed.

California Criminal Jury Instructions – Assault Causing Great Bodily Injury

To convict you under CPC §245(a)(1), the prosecution must prove the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

You willfully assaulted someone using force likely resulting in great bodily injury. You also knew of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that the act would result in using force and you had the ability to use force likely to produce great bodily injury or an assault. Finally, you did not act in self-defense or in defense of someone else.

Example: Defendant Derrek is crossing a street one night after a night of drinking with friends. He passes Victim Vonn in a crosswalk. Derrek drunkenly lunges at her as sort of prank. Vonn, caught unawares and terrified, falls backward, snaps one of her high heels, tumbles down and strikes her head on the bumper of a car idling in the intersection. Vonn cracks her skull and is badly injured. Derrek, arrested only moments later, is charged under CPC §245(a)(1). He defends himself by pointing out that he never touched Vonn and isn't “responsible for the shoes she wears.” Should Derrek be acquitted, as he says?

Conclusion: Derrek willfully committed an act which would've led Vonn to realize would result in use of force. He had the ability to produce an assault when he lunged at Vonn. He wasn't defending anyone at the time; the act was a “sort of prank.” The act of lunging at Vonn resulted in her falling and cracking her skull, a form of great bodily injury. These are the elements of the crime. Derrek didn't have to touch Vonn to assault her; he had only to have the ability to use force likely to produce great bodily injury in order to violate the law. Derrek is, furthermore, responsible for the foreseeable effects of committing assault, which includes the possibility of Vonn losing her footing and falling because of her footwear. Therefore, while he isn't “responsible” Vonn's attire, he should be convicted of violating CPC §245(a)(1).  

What Can I Do If I'm Charged With Carjacking?

The State of California treats Carjacking as a serious offense. If you're charged with Carjacking, it's essential that you retain a skilled, dedicated criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. Your rights, freedom, and livelihood are at stake.

Remember, a professional criminal defense attorney may be able to:

  • Negotiate a lesser charge in a plea bargain;
  • Reduce your sentence;
  • Or even get charges dismissed completely.

The attorneys at the Kann California Defense Group have an excellent understanding of the local courts and an extensive knowledge of California's criminal justice system. We can represent you in Ventura, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles, Encino, Pasadena and many other Southern California cities. 

If you or someone you know has been arrested for, or charged with, Carjacking, our attorneys will analyze the facts of your case and plan a strategy that will help you obtain the best possible outcome.

Contact the Kann California Defense Group today to schedule your free and confidential consultation.

References

[1] “A person takes something when he or she gains possession of it and moves it some distance. The distance moved may be short.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1650 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[2] “A motor vehicle includes a passenger vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, bus, school bus, commercial vehicle, truck tractor and trailer[.]” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1650 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[3] “A vehicle is within a person's immediate presence if it is sufficiently within his or her control so that he or she could keep possession of it if not prevented by force or fear.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1650 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[4] “Two or more people may possess something 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.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1650 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[5] “An act is done against a person's will if that person does not consent to the act. In order to consent, a person must act freely and voluntarily and know the nature of the act.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1650 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[6] “Fear, as used here, means fear of injury to the person himself or herself, or injury to the person's family or property, or immediate injury to someone else present during the incident or to that person's property.” See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1650 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[7] See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1650 (CALCRIM) (2017). (Emphasis added.)

[8] See CPC §215 (b).

[9] See CPC §672.

[10] See CPC §667.5 (c) (17).

[11] See CPC §1192.7 (c) (27).

[12] See CPC §667 (e) (2) (A) (ii).

[13] See CPC §186.22 (b) (4) (B). [Amended (as amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 887, Sec. 1) by Stats. 2017, Ch. 561, Sec. 178.]

[14] See CPC §§12022.53 (a) (5), (b) – (d).

[15] See CPC §667.5 (c) (9).

[16] See Endnote 12.

[17] See CPC §213 (a) (1) (A).

[18] See Endnote 9.

[19] See “Wobbler” definition at USLegal.com.

[20] See CPC §18 (a).

[21] See Endnote 9.

[22] See CPC §1192.7 (c) (26).

[23] See Endnote 12.

[24] Degrees of the offense are established in California Criminal Jury Instructions 1801 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[25] See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1801 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[26] See Endnote 19.

[27] See CPC §499 (a).

[28] See Endnote 9.

[29] See Endnote 19.

[30] See CPC §461 (a).

[31] See Endnote 9.

[32] See California Criminal Jury Instructions 1204 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[33] See CPC §209.5 (a).

[34] See Endnote 9.

[35] See CPC §667.5 (c) (14).

[36] See CPC §1192.7 (c) (20).

[37] See Endnote 12.

[38] See CPC §19.

[39] See Endnote 19.

[40] See Endnote 20.

[41] See Endnote 9.

[42] See California Criminal Jury Instructions 875 (CALCRIM) (2017).

[43] See Endnote 19.

[44] See CPC §245 (a) (1).

[45] See CPC §1192.7 (c) (8).

[46] See Endnote 12.

Menu