Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantappealwrit of prohibition
defendanthearingtestimonywrit of prohibition

Related Cases

People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15, 447 P.2d 942, 73 Cal.Rptr. 550
View Case »
Commonwealth v. Gouse, 97 Mass.App.Ct. 1106, 142 N.E.3d 97 (Table), 2020 WL 1242960
View Case »
United States v. Hilderbrand, 667 Fed.Appx. 131 (Mem)
View Case »
People v. Beardslee, 53 Cal.3d 68, 53 Cal.3d 1179A, 806 P.2d 1311, 279 Cal.Rptr. 276
View Case »
Guffey v. State, 103 Wash.2d 144, 690 P.2d 1163
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Faustina v. Superior Court, In and For Los Angeles County, 174 Cal.App.2d 830, 345 P.2d 543

Facts

On June 29, 1959, six tires were stolen from a tire company by Paul Woods and another individual. After their arrest, Woods indicated he intended to sell the stolen tires to Faustina, who operated a service station. The police facilitated the sale, and Faustina was arrested after he accepted the tires and paid Woods $60. Although the tires were in police custody prior to the sale, Faustina believed he was purchasing stolen property.

The testimony taken at the preliminary hearing which is material to this decision may be summarized as follows: Six automobile tires were stolen from a tire company on June 29, 1959, by Paul Woods and one Lewis. Within a few minutes after the theft they were arrested. The police took possession of the tires. Later that same day the tires were identified by employees of the tire company as the tires that had been stolen from their place of business.

Issue

Is there reasonable or probable cause to hold the petitioner for an attempt to receive stolen property, assuming the character of the property changed from 'stolen' to 'recovered'?

On the basis of the foregoing, the issue to be decided may be stated as follows: Assuming, without deciding, that the character of the property was changed from ‘stolen’ to ‘recovered’ property and that therefore a prosecution for receiving stolen property would not lie, is there reasonable or probable cause to hold the petitioner for an attempt to receive stolen property.

Rule

The court applied the principle that a defendant can be guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if they have the intent to commit that crime, regardless of whether the crime could be completed due to circumstances beyond their control.

The rule of the Gardner case has been cited with approval by the Supreme Court of California in the recent case of People v. Camodeca, 52 Cal.2d 142, 338 P.2d 903 and is controlling in the case at bar.

Analysis

The court reasoned that Faustina attempted to receive stolen property because he purchased the tires believing they were stolen and intended to keep them from the true owner. The fact that the tires were in police custody did not negate his intent or the attempt, as he acted on the belief that he was engaging in a criminal transaction.

In the instant case the tires had been stolen, the defendant purchased them believing that they were stolen and with the intent to keep them from the true owner. Only because of the alertness and efficiency of the police officers was he unsuccessful in his effort to commit a crime.

Conclusion

The court denied the writ of prohibition, affirming that there was reasonable and probable cause to hold Faustina for an attempt to receive stolen property.

The alternative writ of prohibition is discharged and the petition is denied.

Who won?

The District Court of Appeal prevailed, as they upheld the decision to deny the writ of prohibition based on the evidence of Faustina's intent and actions.

Writ denied.

You must be