SAN FRANCISCO — During a pretrial hearing at the San Francisco Hall of Justice, Judge John Echeverria adopted an interpretation of California’s receiving stolen property law that conflicted with arguments made by Deputy Public Defender Latisha McCray, concluding the offense does not necessarily require property to change hands between two people. McCray argued the ruling could lead to overcharging the accused, who faces charges of stealing a vehicle, evading police, running a red light and receiving stolen property.
The vehicle was reported missing by a couple, who did not see anyone steal the car. Twenty-four minutes after the vehicle was reported missing, officers spotted a vehicle matching the description being driven by the accused.
After following the vehicle for several minutes, officers activated their emergency lights in an attempt to conduct a traffic stop, after which, within “mere seconds,” the vehicle allegedly accelerated to unusual speeds and ran a red light.
The vehicle crashed head-on into a municipal bus. The bus driver allegedly suffered chest pain and a broken arm, while the accused also sustained visible injuries to an arm.
The accused remained in custody during the pretrial hearing. DPD McCray sought to have several charges dismissed, arguing the brief acceleration of the vehicle was insufficient to establish evading police because the driver may not have had adequate time to react.
She further contended that, without a physical description linking the accused to the stolen vehicle, the prosecution’s case rested solely on circumstantial evidence.
Deputy District Attorney Patrick McKuin rebutted the defense by counting the seconds between officers activating their emergency lights and the crash, estimating approximately 15 seconds and arguing that was more than enough time for the driver to begin slowing down.
Furthermore, McKuin argued it was unreasonable to infer that a handoff of the vehicle could have occurred during the brief period between the theft report and the crash.
On the issue of receiving stolen property, DPD McCray argued the first element of the offense could not be established because, even if there had been a handoff, there was no clear indication the vehicle had been stolen. She argued that, in many receiving stolen vehicle cases, factors such as broken windows or an exposed ignition are commonly used to establish knowledge that the vehicle was stolen.
Judge Echeverria did not challenge DPD McCray’s argument regarding intent. Instead, he suggested that receiving stolen property is not necessarily a two-person crime.
According to Judge Echeverria, under California law, the first element of the offense — “You buy or receive property that has been obtained by theft or extortion (or you attempt to do so)” — does not specify that the recipient must be someone other than the person who allegedly stole the property.
While DDA McKuin agreed with Judge Echeverria’s interpretation, DPD McCray disagreed. While it is ultimately up to the judge to determine which legal argument prevails, such an interpretation could result in the accused facing additional charges, potentially increasing the amount of time spent defending against the case and depriving him of his freedom.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
