People v. Geter
2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 74, 136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 500, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1430 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a theft to constitute grand theft 'from the person' under California Penal Code § 487(c), the property must be physically on, attached to, or held in the victim's actual possession at the commencement of the defendant's unlawful act; property merely in the victim's immediate presence or constructive control is insufficient.
Facts:
- On the evening of June 22, 2009, I.E. went to a Wells Fargo Bank to deposit cash into an ATM.
- I.E. inserted approximately $125 into the machine, but some of the cash was rejected and returned by the ATM because it was old and worn.
- Defendant followed I.E. into the bank parking lot to confront him over a personal dispute involving defendant's girlfriend.
- Defendant approached I.E. at the ATM, yelling at him for 10 to 15 seconds.
- Defendant then struck I.E. in the face and pushed him away from the machine.
- I.E., feeling threatened, fled to his car, leaving his bank card and the rejected cash at the ATM.
- Defendant walked up to the ATM, took the rejected cash, returned to his car, and drove away.
- When I.E. returned to the ATM, his bank card was there but the cash was gone.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant was charged with robbery in a California trial court.
- A jury acquitted the defendant of robbery but found him guilty of the lesser included offense of grand theft from the person.
- The trial court sentenced the defendant to five years of formal probation, with a condition that he serve six months in county jail.
- Defendant appealed the grand theft conviction to the California Court of Appeal, arguing insufficiency of the evidence.
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 taking cash from an automatic teller machine (ATM) after assaulting the victim and causing him to flee constitute grand theft 'from the person' when the victim had voluntarily placed the cash in the ATM and was not physically holding it when the assault began?
Opinions:
Majority - Hull, Acting P. J.
No. Taking cash from an ATM after assaulting the victim is not grand theft 'from the person' if the victim was not physically holding the money when the assault occurred. The court reasoned that the statute for grand theft from the person requires the property to be physically connected to the victim, such as being held, carried, or attached to their clothing. This standard is stricter than the 'immediate presence' standard used for robbery. Citing the precedent set in People v. McElroy, the court emphasized that the statute was designed to protect against pickpockets and purse-snatchers, where property is taken directly from the victim's physical possession. In this case, I.E. had voluntarily relinquished physical possession of the money by inserting it into the ATM. Although the machine rejected the bills, there was no evidence that I.E. had regained physical control of them before the defendant's assault began. Therefore, the money was in I.E.'s immediate presence but not on his person, making the crime petty theft rather than grand theft.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the narrow, traditional interpretation of the phrase 'from the person' in California's grand theft statute. It clarifies that a voluntary relinquishment of physical control by the victim, even moments before an assault, removes the theft from the purview of this specific type of grand theft. The ruling solidifies the distinction between property that is physically connected to a person and property that is merely within their immediate presence. This precedent will require prosecutors to present clear evidence that the victim was holding or otherwise physically connected to the property at the moment the defendant's unlawful conduct commenced to secure a conviction for grand theft from the person.
