Opinion ID: 788799
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intent to Deprive Owner of Rights and Benefits of Ownership

Text: 12 California case law has interpreted § 487 as [n]ecessarily requir[ing] a finding that the accused intended to steal[.] People v. Jaramillo, 16 Cal.3d 752, 129 Cal.Rptr. 306, 548 P.2d 706, 709 (1976) (en banc); see People v. Davis, 19 Cal.4th 301, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 965 P.2d 1165, 1167-68 (1998); People v. Campbell, 63 Cal.App.3d 599, 133 Cal.Rptr. 815, 824 (1976); cf. United States v. Perez-Corona, 295 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir.2002) (concluding that, because case law interpreting the state criminal statute required only knowledge, the conduct proscribed by the statute fell outside the definition of theft offense, which requires intent to deprive the owner of property). Further, the California Supreme Court has interpreted § 484(a) — the general theft statute to which § 487 refers in defining grand theft — as itself requiring the intent permanently to deprive the owner of possession. See Davis, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 965 P.2d at 1167-68 (stating the general rule that intent to steal is required for conviction under § 484 and that [t]he intent to steal ... is the intent, without a good faith claim of right, to permanently deprive the owner of possession). Therefore, just as the generic definition of theft offense requires intent to deprive the owner of rights and benefits of ownership, Corona-Sanchez, 291 F.3d at 1205, § 487(c) allows for conviction only where the defendant had an intent to deprive the owner of possession. Section 487(c) thus does not fail the categorical test based on any lack of the requisite intent. 13