Receiving Stolen Property

[rjhmap]

What is the name of your state? California

I was charged with Receiving Stolen Property (496a). I bought tickets to a sporting event off a scalper for a game a week later. I bought tickets of the scalper worked for the game I was at. So the next day I asked if he had tickets to future events. He did. I bought a few tickets off him and posted them on craigslist later that week. I sold them to a ticket re-seller. The buyer than asked if I could get more tickets. So I did and when I go to meet the buyer again I was arrested.

The buyer felt the tickets were stolen, however when I called to see if the tickets were good, I was told they were. later i found out they were bought with a stolen credit card.

So I am set up to take the fall and now they DA is trying to find any evidence on me. I went to the Pre trail hearing and the DA asked for a month of time because he had no evidence. He has now done this twice. I have a public defender and he just does whatever the DA wants. I want to ask the judge to dismiss the case because i have to show up for court 4 times now and they have no evidence against me.

What should I do? I really need help.

 

[tranquility]

They *do* have evidence against you. They see you selling tickets that were purchased with a stolen credit card. What they are having problems with is lock-tight proof you had knowledge of the tickets' illegal source.

Have you provided the name and information of the person you bought the tickets from? Did he cop to buying them with a stolen credit card? Let me guess, you can't find the guy any more or he bought them from someone who he can't find, right? This is even though you have bought such tickets repeatedly.

There is enough to try you. I don't know what a jury would think about the element of intent. However, it is hardly the case there is "no" evidence.

 

[CdwJava]

The other thing they will look at is whether you should have REASONABLY known the tickets were stolen. Were you buying them from YOUR source at a vastly discounted price? Were they at or below retail value? Below standard re-sale value? How far below the going rate for re-sale were they?

All this is likely being considered.

I tend to agree with Tranquility that they are having tough time tying you to having knowledge of the tickets' being stolen. Assuming you are innocent, the more information you provide about your source the less likely you will be wrapped up in this. But, if your source is a n enigma then it only serves to make you look more guilty and they will keep snooping.

- Carl

 

[rjhmap]

More Info

I gave the cop's his name, phone #, description and even offered to go point him out for them. The cops said "Why would we want to do that? We have the thief in cuffs right here."

They refused to believe anything I said, took everything out of my car fr evidence. My laptop, cd's, I-pod, tax papers, my girlfriends purse etc.

I bought the tickets for a little above face value. I knew I would be able to sell them for more than face value.

 

[tranquility]

It seems as though it would be very difficult to prove intent to possess stolen property if you gave adequate identifying information of the person you received the property from to the police and they did nothing. I'm sorry this won't get you free from court issues though.

It seems so unfair that it seems like something is missing. Can the police be jerks sometime? Yes. No doubt. But here, if everything you've said is true and there is nothing more, it seems like the police *and* the DA are jerks. Why do they want to be jerks against you?

 

[BoredAtty]

The other thing they will look at is whether you should have REASONABLY known the tickets were stolen.

I don't think that will fly to convict the OP. The statute explicitly states that the accused must have known that the property was stolen.

496. (a) Every person who buys or receives any property that has
been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting
theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained,
or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling,
or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to
be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished [...].​

 

[tranquility]

Absent a confession or admission, how would the state know what a suspect knew?

 

[You Are Guilty]

I don't have time at the moment to do the research, but if the CA courts don't use a "knew or reasonably should have known" standard, I will be flabbergasted. And I do not flabbergast easily.

 

[CdwJava]

I don't have time at the moment to do the research, but if the CA courts don't use a "knew or reasonably should have known" standard, I will be flabbergasted. And I do not flabbergast easily.

They do use the reasonably should have known standard.

But, that's the rub here - how to show that.

I suspect the delays have been because the DA has not received the confirmation they want from the police or their own investigators, and it's very likely they are still looking into the matter.

I am surprised they went forward at all without the connection to begin with. Unfortunately, they made an arrest - it appears - before the case was fully developed, and the DA was forced to court before they had a case to bring forward.

- Carl

 

[BoredAtty]

I don't have time at the moment to do the research, but if the CA courts don't use a "knew or reasonably should have known" standard, I will be flabbergasted. And I do not flabbergast easily.

I appear to be in the minority here, but I do not believe that "knew" means "reasonably should have known." "Reasonably should have known" is the mens rea you'd find in a criminal negligence case.

tranquility: The prosecution can prove what the accused knew with direct or circumstantial evidence. If the prosecution can't do that, then there cannot be a conviction.

 

[CdwJava]

The "knowing" is often proven at trial by the totality o fthe facts to show what reasonably should have been known. However, technically KNOWN is the standard per the CA jury instructions:

1. The defendant (bought/received/sold/aided in
selling/concealed or withheld from its owner/aided in
concealing or withholding from its owner) property that
had been (stolen/obtained by extortion);
[AND]
2. When the defendant (bought/received/sold/aided in selling/
concealed or withheld/aided in concealing or withholding)
the property, (he/she) knew that the property had been
(stolen/obtained by extortion)(;/.)
<Give element 3 when instructing on knowledge of presence of
property; see Bench Notes>
[AND
3. The defendant actually knew of the presence of the
property.]​

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

Carl listed the jury instructions, but the cases which the instructions are based upon are:
&#8226; 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 &#8220;specific mental state&#8221;].
&#8226; Knowledge Element. People v. Reyes (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 975, 985 [61 Cal.Rptr.2d 39].

There is also a reference to CALCRIM No. 376 for "recently stolen property" which helps define the knowledge portion. Two relevant portions are:
b. The attributes of possession, e.g., the time, place, and manner of
possession that tend to show guilt. (People v. Anderson, supra, 210
Cal.App.3d at p. 424; People v. Hallman (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 638, 641 [110 Cal.Rptr. 891]; see, e.g., People v. Gamble (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 446, 453&#8211;454 [27 Cal.Rptr.2d 451].)

and,

d. The defendant&#8217;s conduct or statements tending to show guilt, or the failure to explain possession of the property under circumstances that indicate a &#8220;consciousness of guilt.&#8221; (People v. Citrino (1956) 46 Cal.2d 284, 288&#8211;289 [294 P.2d 32]; People v. Wells (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 324, 328&#8211;329, 331&#8211;332 [9 Cal.Rptr. 384]; People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 175&#8211;176 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 485, 6 P.3d 150]; People v.
Champion (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 29, 32 [71 Cal.Rptr. 113].)

 

[CdwJava]

I should have posted the whole thing ... i was rushed when I posted - work called.

- Carl

 

[tranquility]

I feel the same way when the light goes on a Krispy Kreme. Free hot from the fryer sugared perfection. Booyah!

 

[CdwJava]

I feel the same way when the light goes on a Krispy Kreme. Free hot from the fryer sugared perfection. Booyah!

Never liked Krispy Kreme's much ... now they're all gone. Oh well.

Now, Winchell's! Yah-hoo! I remember a shop owner in Sac. that used to open early and let the cops in at 3 AM when he'd start his baking, and we'd do paperwork! Fresh coffee, fresh baked goods, good donut!

Yum!!

- Carl