People v. Lopez
6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 432, 79 P.3d 548, 31 Cal. 4th 1051 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'felonious taking' element of the crime of carjacking requires asportation, meaning the defendant must cause the motor vehicle to be moved, however slightly, for the offense to be completed.
Facts:
- Wa Vue Yang was seated in his van in a parking lot when Lopez approached him.
- Lopez pulled out a gun, shot at the ground, and ordered Yang out of the van.
- Yang complied, leaving his keys in the ignition.
- Lopez got into the driver's seat of the van and threw his backpack onto the passenger seat.
- Believing the gun was fake, Yang returned to the van to retrieve some checks.
- Lopez pointed the gun at Yang and pulled the trigger twice, but the gun did not fire.
- Lopez then fled from the van on foot, without ever having moved the vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- At the trial court level, Lopez was found guilty of carjacking after a court trial.
- Lopez appealed his carjacking conviction to the California Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that movement of the vehicle was not a required element for a completed carjacking.
- The California Supreme Court, the state's highest court, granted Lopez's petition for review to resolve a conflict between this decision and a contrary holding in another case.
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 'felonious taking' element of the California carjacking statute (Pen. Code, § 215) require proof of asportation, or movement, of the motor vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
Yes, the felonious taking element of the crime of carjacking requires asportation or movement of the motor vehicle. The carjacking statute (Pen. Code, § 215) was modeled on the robbery statute (Pen. Code, § 211) and uses the identical phrase 'felonious taking.' For centuries, under the common law and in California precedent, the 'taking' element of robbery has been construed to require both gaining possession of the property (caption) and carrying it away (asportation). When the Legislature uses a legal term with a well-established judicial construction in a new, similar statute, it is presumed to have intended the same meaning. Although the Legislature modified certain elements of robbery when creating the carjacking offense, such as the intent requirement, it gave no indication that it intended to eliminate the asportation requirement for a 'taking.' Therefore, to complete the crime of carjacking, the defendant must not only gain dominion over the vehicle but also cause it to move.
Analysis:
This decision definitively establishes that asportation is a necessary element of a completed carjacking in California, thereby resolving a conflict among the state's appellate courts. By aligning the 'taking' element of carjacking with its traditional meaning in robbery and larceny, the court created a clear, bright-line rule distinguishing the completed offense from an attempt. This holding clarifies the prosecutorial burden, requiring evidence of actual vehicle movement, however slight, for a carjacking conviction. Consequently, a defendant who gains control of a vehicle by force but is apprehended before moving it can only be convicted of attempted carjacking, which carries a lesser penalty.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Lopez