Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Possession of a Stolen Vehicle

[johnr9q]

My question involves criminal law for the state of California
I was recently on a jury (the trial is now complete) where we had to determine guilt on the following changes: Charge number 1: theft of a motor vehicle
Charge number 2: possession of a stolen motor vehicle

We decided that we could not determine who stole the vehicle or who was driving the vehicle when it was stopped some time later. So we said not guilty to charge number 1. Before deliberations we were told to come back with guilty or not guilty on charge 1 or 2 but we could not come back with guilty of both charges.

As to charge Number 2, we determined that the defendant knew that the vehicle was stolen and was riding, but probably not driving the vehicle along with 3 other occupants. We determined that the defendant (along with two other passengers) got into the vehicle after one of the other occupants stole the vehicle. Can someone tell me if what I describe is reason to determine guilt of charge number 2?

 

[mightymoose]

If the occupants had knowledge the vehicle was stolen then you could have convicted on #2... but it takes all 12 to come to that conclusion. I am very surprised you didn't have a single juror vote guilty.... but then again I am not the one that heard the evidence.

That said... what exactly is the charge? If it is PC 496d then you may not have enough info to convict since that requires a person to knowingly purchase or receive stolen property. If all you have is a person in possession, who is knowingly occupying a stolen vehicle, I'm not sure PC 496d applies if they were only occupying the vehicle and not actually in control of it.

Section 10854 of the Vehicle Code is probably best, which requires possession and use of a stolen vehicle. If the driver can not be determined, it can still be argued that the occupants were in possession of the vehicle, especially if they knew it was stolen. This code does not require knowledge of the theft though, only the possession and use without permission. This code is a misdemeanor with lesser consequences than PC 496, but the jury can only consider the options given them.

 

[johnr9q]

I believe the charge was 496 not sure if there was a sub paragraph. But the charge as written for our use in the deliberation room had words to the effect of "aids in withholding or concealing" and we felt, among other things, that if he was a passenger in a vehicle and he knew the vehicle was stolen then he was depriving the owner of the use of the vehicle and therefore "withholding" the vehicle from its owner. Just being a passenger in the vehicle is what the jury struggled with and the DA didn't give us any help in the matter. I think she was sure we would convict on auto theft so didn't say much about possession.