MacArthur

People v. MacArthur

Good Law
142 Cal. App. 4th 275·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1291·2006 Daily Journal DAR 11343·47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 736·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7931
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 24, 2006G035368California2,272 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ikola, J.

Defendant Steve Eric MacArthur challenges his conviction for receiving stolen property. This offense requires the property be stolen or obtained by theft — i.e., taken with the intent of depriving the owner of possession for a sufficiently extended time. Here, some evidence suggested the property had been taken without the requisite intent. Thus, the court had a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte with a definition of “stolen” and “theft,” including the intent requirement. We reverse.

FACTS

The victim noticed a watch, a bracelet, and a pair of earrings worth approximately $7,000 were missing from her Newport Beach house. Her daughter, defendant’s girlfriend, had often taken jewelry from the house and pawned it. Accordingly, the victim contacted a West Covina pawnshop. The pawnshop would not give her any information. She then contacted the West Covina and Newport Beach Police Departments.

Shortly thereafter, a Newport Beach police officer went to the West Covina Police Department, where defendant and his girlfriend were in custody. The officer obtained two pawn slips indicating defendant had pawned the victim’s bracelet and earrings for $185. Defendant acknowledged his…

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.