People v. Kunkin
107 Cal. Rptr. 184, 9 Cal. 3d 245, 507 P.2d 1392 (1973)
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for receiving stolen property, the prosecution must present substantial evidence that the defendant knew the property was stolen, which requires knowledge that the property was taken with the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of its possession. Mere knowledge that property is sensitive, confidential, or obtained without authorization is insufficient to establish knowledge that it was stolen.
Facts:
- Jerry Reznick, a mail clerk at the Los Angeles office of the Attorney General, removed a copy of a personnel roster of undercover narcotics agents which listed their names, home addresses, and phone numbers.
- Reznick brought the roster to the office of the Los Angeles Free Press and met with reporter Gerald Robert Applebaum.
- Reznick asked if the newspaper would publish the roster and if he would be compensated; Applebaum indicated a standard $20 fee was possible for used information but made no promises.
- A week later, Reznick left the roster with Applebaum, insisting that his identity as the source remain confidential and that the physical document be returned to him after use.
- At the time Reznick delivered the document, he had already terminated his employment with the Attorney General's office, but he did not inform the defendants of this fact.
- The Los Angeles Free Press, with editor Arthur Glick Kunkin, published the roster verbatim in its newspaper.
- After publication, Reznick requested the return of the roster, but Applebaum refused, stating it was locked in a safe place.
- Reznick was never paid any money by the Free Press for the roster.
Procedural Posture:
- The Los Angeles Free Press, Arthur Glick Kunkin, and Gerald Robert Applebaum were indicted in a California trial court on two counts of receiving stolen property.
- At the close of the prosecution's case, the trial court acquitted the Free Press and Kunkin on one of the two counts.
- After the jury failed to reach a verdict on one count against Applebaum, the charge was dismissed.
- A jury found all three defendants guilty on the remaining count of receiving stolen property related to the narcotics agents' roster.
- A judgment of conviction was entered against the Free Press, and Kunkin and Applebaum were granted probation.
- The defendants (Appellants) appealed the judgment and the probation orders to the Supreme Court of California.
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 substantial evidence support a conviction for receiving stolen property where the evidence shows the defendants received a sensitive government document from a source who wished to remain anonymous, and the defendants knew its publication might cause trouble, but the source stated he wanted the document back after its use?
Opinions:
Majority - Wright, C. J.
No. A conviction for receiving stolen property cannot be sustained because there was no substantial evidence that the defendants knew the property had been stolen. The crime of receiving stolen property requires proof of three elements: (1) the property was received; (2) the property was obtained by theft; and (3) the accused knew the property was so obtained. While there was substantial circumstantial evidence to support a finding that the roster was stolen (as Reznick had left his job and could not easily return it, indicating an intent to permanently deprive), the evidence fails on the third element of the defendants' knowledge. The circumstances the prosecution relied on—the sensitive nature of the document, the source's desire for anonymity, and the defendants' awareness of potential trouble—only suggest knowledge of an unauthorized disclosure, not knowledge of a theft. These suspicious circumstances confuse receiving sensitive information with receiving property known to be taken with the specific intent required for larceny. Reznick's uncontradicted testimony that he wanted the document back, combined with his failure to disclose his employment status, negates an inference that the defendants knew he intended to permanently deprive the Attorney General of the roster.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial distinction between knowledge of an unauthorized disclosure of information and knowledge of theft for the crime of receiving stolen property. By reversing the convictions, the court set a high evidentiary bar for proving the 'mens rea' (guilty knowledge) element, particularly in cases involving journalists and leaked documents. This decision provides significant protection for the press, preventing the criminalization of receiving sensitive or confidential information unless the prosecution can prove the journalist knew the physical property itself was taken with the intent to be permanently kept from its owner. It forces courts to analyze the specific intent behind the taking of the property and the receiver's actual knowledge of that intent, rather than allowing convictions based on the controversial or sensitive nature of the information involved.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: People v. Kunkin (1973)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"