People v. Ayala
770 P.2d 1265, 1989 Colo. LEXIS 51, 13 Brief Times Rptr. 334 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Probable cause cannot be established by stacking an inference upon an inference. To support a charge of theft by receiving, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to create a reasonable belief that the defendant knew or believed the property was stolen, not merely that the circumstances were suspicious.
Facts:
- A 1983 Chevrolet Camaro, priced at $7,995, was stolen from a used car lot.
- Anselmo Hijinio Ayala and Anthony Wayne Johnson later observed the Camaro in a field, where a man identifying himself as 'Mike Klark' was actively stripping parts from it.
- 'Klark' claimed the car belonged to his brother who was having trouble with it and offered to sell it for $800.
- Ayala and Johnson each contributed $400 to purchase the inoperable vehicle.
- At the time of purchase, they did not receive a certificate of title but were given a phone number by 'Klark' to call later to obtain it.
- While Ayala and Johnson were using a cutting torch to continue dismantling the Camaro, they accidentally cut a fuel line, causing the car to catch fire.
- Ayala called the fire department, which prompted a police investigation that revealed the car was stolen and the identity and phone number provided by 'Klark' were fictitious.
Procedural Posture:
- Anselmo Hijinio Ayala was charged with theft by receiving in a Colorado trial court.
- A preliminary hearing was held to determine whether probable cause existed to bind the defendant over for trial.
- The trial court found that the prosecution failed to establish probable cause and dismissed the information against Ayala.
- The prosecution, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the purchase of a partially dismantled vehicle for a low price, without receiving a title at the time of sale, provide sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the buyer knew the vehicle was stolen?
Opinions:
Majority - Erickson, Justice
No. The purchase of a partially dismantled vehicle for a low price without immediate receipt of title does not, by itself, establish probable cause for theft by receiving. To establish probable cause, the prosecution must present evidence sufficient to induce a person of ordinary prudence to entertain a reasonable belief that the defendant committed the crime. Here, the prosecution failed to establish the requisite mens rea, as there was no evidence proving that $800 was an unreasonable price for an inoperable, partially dismantled vehicle. To find probable cause would require inferring the price was suspiciously low, and from that inference, further inferring that Ayala knew the car was stolen. The court explicitly rejected this 'inference upon an inference' logic, stating that presumptions must be drawn from established facts. Furthermore, the failure to receive a certificate of title at the time of sale is not, under Colorado law, sufficient on its own to establish that the buyer knew the vehicle was stolen.
Dissenting - Vollack, Justice
Yes. The circumstances surrounding the purchase were sufficient to establish probable cause that the buyer knew the vehicle was stolen. At a preliminary hearing, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and the standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant purchased a three-year-old car valued at nearly $8,000 for only $800 from a stranger in a field, with no supporting paperwork. The dissent argues that the acquisition of recently stolen property at a 'ridiculously low price' is itself sufficient to support an inference of guilty knowledge. The trial judge should have allowed the case to proceed to a jury, which could then assess witness credibility and determine whether the state of mind was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that probable cause requires a foundation of established facts and cannot be based on the pyramiding of inferences. It clarifies the evidentiary threshold for the 'knowing' element in theft-by-receiving cases, requiring the prosecution to provide some factual basis to support an inference of guilty knowledge, such as evidence that the price paid was objectively unreasonable for the item in its condition. The ruling also limits the scope of appellate review of probable cause determinations, discouraging appeals that merely dispute a trial court's assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence rather than raising a distinct question of law.
