People v. Mackin CA3

DISCUSSION

The parties agree that defendant’s conviction for grand theft must be reversed for want of substantial evidence showing UCSC owned the mountain lion. For the reasons we shall explain, we agree with the parties. A jury found defendant guilty of grand theft for killing a mountain lion alleged to be the property of UCSC worth more than $950, as charged in count 2 of the information. An essential element for this crime was that UCSC had a proprietary or possessory interest in the mountain lion. (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. (Civ. Code,

2 § 656; [citations].)” (Ibid.) Civil Code section 656 provides: “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.” Thus, 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.…