Court Opinion

ID: 9537267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:15:04.296371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:20.158416
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE KELLEY,
specially concurring:
Under Part III of the court’s opinion, we hold that one who is a principal to larceny by reason of being an accessory and who purchases the fruits of that larceny knowing them to be stolen may be convicted of either theft (by taking) or theft (by receiving), but that he cannot be convicted and sentenced upon both counts. With this I agree. The majority of the court then lays down the course to be followed when, at the conclusion of the evidence, it appears that there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction on each of the charges. It says that the court may (1) instruct the jury so as to obviate the double conviction or (2) require the district *259attorney to elect as to whether the theft (by taking) count or the theft (by receiving) count shall be submitted to the jury.
This court then, on its own motion, vacates the convictions based on the theft (by taking) counts, allowing the convictions on the theft (by receiving counts) to stand and then, remands the case to the court for resentencing. With this I disagree.
I agree that there should not be a new trial, which would be necessary to employ the first alternative of allowing the jury to decide whether the conviction should be for the theft (by taking) or (by receiving).
The second alternative was to require the district attorney to elect. I would employ this alternative, albeit, it is after judgment has been entered on the verdicts. The election as to counts on which sentence should be imposed is not properly the function of this court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE authorizes me to say that he concurs in the views hereinabove expressed.