People v. Zamani
2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 482, 107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 608, 183 Cal. App. 4th 854 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of appropriation of lost property under California Penal Code § 485 is a general intent crime, which does not require a specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property.
Facts:
- In February 2004, Quicksilver Technology, Inc. (Quicksilver) lost two valuable test circuit boards during shipment.
- In August 2004, Jerry Farmer purchased the boards for a low price on eBay from Silicon Valley Compucycle (SVC).
- Farmer contacted Quicksilver, who informed him the boards were lost property worth $24,000 and demanded their return.
- Farmer returned the boards to SVC, and its owner, Shaw Roohparvar, asked his friend, Michael Jaffari Zamani, to facilitate their return to Quicksilver.
- After learning Quicksilver had received an insurance payment for the boards, Zamani told a Quicksilver employee that the boards no longer belonged to Quicksilver but to the insurance company.
- Zamani then attempted to sell the boards back to Quicksilver, initially demanding $20,000 and stating, "that was before we knew we were sitting on a gold mine."
- Over the next several months, Zamani refused to return the boards unless Quicksilver paid him thousands of dollars, rejecting a $1,000 reward offer.
- In November 2006, police executed a search warrant and found the boards in a box in Zamani's home.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Jaffari Zamani was charged by amended information with felony appropriation of lost property.
- At a jury trial in a California superior court, Zamani was the sole defense witness.
- The trial court instructed the jury that the offense was a general intent crime and refused Zamani's request for instructions on specific intent and mistake of fact.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict.
- The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Zamani on probation.
- Zamani (appellant) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District.
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 crime of appropriation of lost property under California Penal Code § 485 require a specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Mihara, Acting P. J.
No. The crime of appropriation of lost property under Penal Code § 485 is a general intent offense and does not require a specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of property. The plain language of § 485 does not contain terms like 'feloniously,' which has been interpreted in other theft statutes (like § 484) to import the common law specific intent requirement. The statute only requires that a person find lost property with knowledge of (or means to inquire about) the true owner and then appropriate it for their own use without making reasonable efforts to restore it. The Legislature's decision to allow § 485 violations to be treated more leniently than other thefts further supports the conclusion that it is a distinct offense with a different mental state element. Therefore, the trial court did not err by declining to give a specific intent instruction.
Concurring - McAdams, J.
Yes. Appropriation of lost property is a specific intent crime, but the instructional error was harmless. Section 485 is a special theft statute that falls under the general definition of theft, which has long been held to require a specific intent to permanently deprive. However, the statutory language of § 485 itself—requiring appropriation for one's own use 'without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property'—is the functional equivalent of the common law specific intent requirement. Therefore, although the trial court was incorrect to label the crime as one of general intent, the instructions it gave, which tracked the language of the statute, sufficiently guided the jury to find the necessary mental state, rendering the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that not all offenses statutorily defined as 'theft' in California carry the traditional common law requirement of a specific intent to permanently deprive. By classifying appropriation of lost property as a general intent crime, the court lowers the mental state (mens rea) threshold for conviction. This makes prosecution easier, as the focus shifts from proving the defendant's long-term goal to proving the intentional act of appropriation coupled with a failure to make reasonable efforts to return the property. The ruling solidifies a distinction between theft by taking (larceny) and theft by finding, impacting how future cases involving finders who attempt to ransom property back to its owner are charged and tried.
