People v. Jaso
1970 Cal. App. LEXIS 1576, 84 Cal. Rptr. 567, 4 Cal. App. 3d 767 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of theft by larceny requires the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. A trial court's failure to instruct the jury on this essential element of the crime constitutes a reversible error.
Facts:
- James Merritt, an off-duty Los Angeles police officer, was working as a security guard in civilian clothes at a Sears store.
- Merritt observed the defendant for approximately 25 minutes in the women's clothing section.
- Merritt saw the defendant take a blue dress from a hanger and place it into a Sears shopping bag he was carrying.
- After placing the dress in the bag, the defendant paused briefly and then began walking directly toward the parking lot, away from the cash registers.
- When confronted by Merritt, an altercation ensued, after which Merritt found four articles of women's clothing, including the blue dress, in the defendant's bag without a sales slip.
- The defendant testified that he had already paid for one item and was walking to his car to retrieve his wallet to pay for the other items.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged by information in a state trial court with battery on a peace officer and petty theft with a prior conviction.
- A jury found the defendant not guilty of battery but guilty of petty theft.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motions for a new trial and for probation.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced the defendant to state prison.
- The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the intermediate appellate court.
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 a trial court's failure to instruct the jury that theft requires a specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property constitute a reversible error when the defendant's intent is a material issue in the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, J.
Yes. The trial court’s failure to instruct the jury on the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of property is a reversible error. Theft is a specific intent crime, requiring proof that the perpetrator intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property at the time of the taking. The instructions given to the jury only defined theft as taking the personal property of another, which was inadequate. This omission could have allowed the jury to convict the defendant for merely taking the item without permission, regardless of whether they believed his testimony that he intended to retrieve his wallet to pay for it. Since the defendant's intent was the central disputed issue and the evidence against him was circumstantial, the failure to instruct on this necessary element deprived him of his constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue, requiring the conviction to be reversed.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the fundamental criminal law principle that theft requires a specific mental state (mens rea), namely the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. It underscores the trial court's affirmative duty to instruct the jury on all essential elements of a crime, even without a request from the defense. The case establishes that omitting the 'intent to permanently deprive' element from a theft instruction is not a harmless error but a constitutional one, especially when the defendant’s intent is the primary issue at trial. This precedent solidifies the protection for defendants whose actions may be ambiguous and whose guilt hinges entirely on their state of mind.
