People v. Boegeman CA4/1
D068525
| Cal. Ct. App. | Sep 29, 2016Background
- Defendant Christopher Boegeman was convicted by a jury of grand theft for his role in acquiring sterling silver shipped by seller Dean Gannon to an apartment occupied by Boegeman and co-defendant David Schroeder; court suspended sentence and placed Boegeman on probation.
- Evidence showed Schroeder purchased the silver by phone, seller shipped it via FedEx, and FedEx driver Steven Milner testified he delivered the package to the address and that Boegeman signed for it using the name "David Schroeder."
- Schroeder later disputed receipt to his credit card company; Visa reversed payment and Gannon recovered $1,000 from FedEx insurance; Goll testified Boegeman and Schroeder discussed a scheme to not sign delivery slips to obtain duplicate/refunded goods.
- Boegeman asserted an alibi claiming he was in Los Angeles the delivery weekend; cellphone-tower records (People’s expert) placed his phone in Escondido; Boegeman said someone else had his phone that weekend.
- Trial instructions included (1) conspiracy and theft by false pretenses, (2) theft by larceny (CALCRIM 1800), and (3) an alibi instruction referencing liability as an aider-and-abettor but without defining aiding-and-abetting.
- The court admitted a FedEx delivery confirmation (signature printout) under the business-records exception; Boegeman appealed, raising instructional and hearsay challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to define aiding-and-abetting in alibi instruction | People relied on conspiracy theory and argued no prejudice from omission | Boegeman: due process and Sixth Amendment violation because jury was told he could be guilty as aider/abettor but was not instructed on its elements | Any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; prosecutor argued conspiracy, not aiding/abetting, and evidence (Goll, Milner) showed knowledge/intent, so no reasonable possibility instruction affected verdict |
| Instruction on theft by larceny | People argued larceny instruction was proper alternative theory | Boegeman: larceny theory invalid because title passed to buyer on shipment—theft by false pretenses was complete before delivery, so larceny could not apply to the seller | Larceny theory was factually (not legally) inadequate; error reviewed under People v. Watson and was not prejudicial—jury likely convicted on theft by false pretenses/conspiracy, supported by record |
| Admissibility of FedEx delivery confirmation | People: document admissible as business record; driver could authenticate and explain PDA entry | Boegeman: hearsay and inadequate foundation under Evidence Code §1271 | Trial court did not abuse discretion; driver testified as qualified custodian and explained mode/timing of preparation, satisfying business-records exception |
| Standard of review for instructional error | N/A (People advanced harmless standards) | Boegeman urged reversal where instruction omitted essential element | Court applied Chapman for constitutional aiding-and-abetting omission (found harmless) and Watson/Guiton/Perez framework for factually inadequate larceny theory (found not prejudicial) |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (constitutional harmless-error standard)
- People v. Beeman, 35 Cal.3d 547 (defining elements of aiding and abetting)
- People v. Aranda, 55 Cal.4th 342 (applying Chapman review)
- People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (theft by false pretenses completes when title transfers)
- People v. Perez, 35 Cal.4th 1219 (distinguishing legally invalid vs. factually inadequate jury theories)
- People v. Guiton, 4 Cal.4th 1116 (Watson review where jury presented factually inadequate theory)
- People v. Beaver, 186 Cal.App.4th 107 (consequence of consensual transfer in false pretense cases; larceny instruction improper)
- People v. Burch, 148 Cal.App.4th 862 (independent review of instructional issues)
- People v. Riggs, 44 Cal.4th 248 (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Lugashi, 205 Cal.App.3d 632 (business-records foundation and trial-court discretion)
- California State Electronics Assn. v. Zeos International Ltd., 41 Cal.App.4th 1270 (shipment vs. destination contract; title passes on shipment)
- Wilson v. Brawn of California, Inc., 132 Cal.App.4th 549 (shipment contracts presumed; delivery-label language not dispositive)