People v. Smith
1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 1280, 268 Cal. App. 2d 117, 73 Cal. Rptr. 859 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Theft of property constitutes 'grand theft from the person' when the property is taken from a victim's person or immediate presence as a direct result of the defendant's actions, even if the property first falls to the ground. The value of the property taken is immaterial for this specific charge.
Facts:
- Defendant and his associate, Glaseo, became involved in an argument with Thomas Gallagos.
- Gallagos ran down the street, but Defendant and Glaseo pursued and caught him.
- A struggle ensued, during which Glaseo grabbed Gallagos by the pants while both Defendant and Glaseo tried to get their hands into Gallagos' pocket.
- During the scuffle, Gallagos’ wallet fell to the street and his pants were torn completely off.
- Glaseo immediately picked up the wallet and pants from the street.
- Defendant and Glaseo then carried the items to the rear of a nearby hotel.
- Police later recovered the torn pants and an empty wallet from the hotel's rear area.
- Glaseo subsequently admitted to police that he had been in a fight and had taken money from the other party.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of California charged Defendant and Glaseo with grand theft from the person.
- A jury in the trial court convicted both Defendant and Glaseo of the charge.
- Both Defendant and Glaseo filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.
- Glaseo’s appeal was subsequently dismissed.
- Defendant (appellant) appealed his conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
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 property from the ground immediately after it has been dislodged from a victim's person during a physical struggle constitute 'grand theft from the person' under California Penal Code § 487, subd. 2, regardless of the property's value?
Opinions:
Majority - Lillie, J.
Yes. Taking property from the ground immediately after it has been dislodged from a victim's person during a physical struggle constitutes 'grand theft from the person,' and the value of the property is not a relevant element for this offense. The court reasoned that the taking was a continuous act that began with the physical assault on Gallagos, which caused the property to fall. Because the defendants' actions directly resulted in the property being separated from the victim, the subsequent act of picking it up from the ground is legally equivalent to taking it directly from his person. Citing precedent, the court affirmed that the defining element of this crime is the felonious taking from a person, not the value of the property taken. The court also dismissed the defendant's argument that the crime was actually robbery, noting that grand theft from the person is a lesser included offense of robbery.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'from the person' element in California's grand theft statute. It establishes that the element is satisfied by a continuous course of conduct, preventing a defendant from escaping liability by arguing the property was technically taken from the ground rather than directly from the victim's body. The ruling reinforces that the gravity of this offense stems from the violation of the victim's physical person and security, not the monetary value of the goods stolen. This precedent makes it easier for prosecutors to secure convictions in cases where a struggle causes items to be dislodged before being stolen.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Smith