Lapcheske

People v. Lapcheske

Good Law
73 Cal. App. 4th 571·86 Cal. Rptr. 2d 565
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 30, 1999E022901California1,670 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKINSTER, J.

A jury found defendant guilty of one count of rent skimming in violation of Civil Code section 890, and three counts of conspiracy — one to commit trespass, another to commit grand theft and the third to commit rent skimming. The charges stem from an enterprise conducted by defendant and another person (who is not a party to this appeal) in which defendant took over residential real property that he believed had been “abandoned” by the property owner and then defendant rented the property on his own behalf. Defendant claimed at trial as he does in this appeal that his actions were not criminal because he entered the properties in question with the intent of ultimately acquiring them by adverse possession. Although the trial court instructed the jury on the adverse possession defense that defendant asserted at trial, the jury apparently rejected that claim, as evidenced by their guilty verdicts on the noted charges.

Discussion

Defendant’s primary claim in this appeal is that he lawfully occupied the properties in question as the initial step in acquiring those properties by adverse possession and, therefore, he cannot be guilty of rent skimming as that offense is defined…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.