Opinion ID: 2599854
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Grand theft of a vehicle

Text: Defendant contends his conviction for grand theft of a vehicle must be reversed because there was insufficient evidence to show that he intended to steal the car, i.e., that he intended permanently to deprive the victim of it. We disagree. Defendant was convicted of violating former section 487h, subdivision (a), which in 1996 provided in pertinent part: Every person who feloniously steals or takes any motor vehicle ... is guilty of grand theft. (Stats.1993, ch. 1125, § 6, p. 6292; see now § 487, subd. (d).) The crime requires the specific intent to permanently deprive a person of property. ( People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 693, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 489, 968 P.2d 48, overruled on another point in People v. Reed (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1224, 45 Cal.Rptr. 3d 353, 137 P.3d 184.) Contrary to defendant's argument, the evidence of his intent, though circumstantial, was strong. He killed the owner of the car and then used it to ferry his stolen goods to sell. As in People v. Moon (2005) 37 Cal.4th 1, 27, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 894, 117 P.3d 591, [t]he evidence defendant intended to deprive [the victim] of her car permanently was overwhelming, and the evidence he merely intended to drive it temporarily and then return it to her was virtually nonexistent. At the threshold, we note that defendant killed [the car's owner], indicating he did not intend to return the car to her. Defendant asserts evidence the victim allowed him to drive the car and had, in fact, loaned it to him the very day of her murder, demonstrates that he had permission to drive the car. The evidence, coming from defendant himself, was not adduced until the penalty phase of the trial, however, and thus was not before the jury at the guilt phase. In any event, even by defendant's own account, he did not have permission to still be driving the victim's car when he was arrested after midnight. Coupled with evidence he killed the car's owner, we conclude there was sufficient evidence defendant did not intend to return the car to her.