People v. Price CA3
C079325
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 8, 2016Background
- Early morning, Hubert left his 1996 Subaru idling in his driveway with the driver’s door unlocked while he attended to his daughter; two women on bicycles approached and took the car as it backed out.
- Hubert confronted the vehicle as it was leaving; defendant (Price) was driving and a codefendant (McKee-Salazar) attempted to get in; Hubert was dragged and injured when the car jolted forward.
- McKee-Salazar was detained at the scene; she told officers she and another person planned to take the running car and that she would drive it after it was out of the driveway. Two backpacks and bikes were left behind.
- The car was found about a quarter mile away; Price was located about half a mile from the abandoned car, sweating and wearing clothes consistent with prior police contacts; one of the bikes at the scene matched Price’s usual bike.
- Price was convicted by a jury of second degree robbery, carjacking, and unlawful taking/ driving of a vehicle; the trial court placed her on three years’ formal probation. On appeal, Price challenged sufficiency of the evidence of intent to steal for the robbery conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of intent to steal for robbery conviction | The People argue the evidence (planning, abandoning bikes/backpacks, force used, flight) permits a reasonable inference Price intended to permanently deprive Hubert of the car. | Price argues the evidence shows at most a temporary taking (e.g., intended short-term use), so no intent to steal necessary for robbery. | The court affirmed: substantial circumstantial evidence supports an intent to steal (permanent deprivation), so robbery conviction stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hatch, 22 Cal.4th 260 (statement of the appellate sufficiency-of-evidence standard)
- People v. Ochoa, 6 Cal.4th 1199 (resolution of credibility conflicts and substantial-evidence review)
- People v. Huggins, 38 Cal.4th 175 (robbery requires intent to deprive owner of property permanently or for a substantial period)
- People v. MacArthur, 142 Cal.App.4th 275 (temporary taking can suffice if deprivation is for a major portion of value or enjoyment)
- People v. Butler, 65 Cal.2d 569 (proof of a state of mind incompatible with intent to steal can preclude theft/robbery)
- People v. Bloom, 48 Cal.3d 1194 (circumstantial evidence suffices to prove state of mind)
- People v. DeLeon, 138 Cal.App.3d 602 (abandonment of an initially taken car does not preclude an inference of intent to permanently deprive)