State v. McCoy
561 A.2d 582 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To be guilty of receiving stolen property under N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7, a person must acquire possession, which requires exercising intentional dominion and control over the property. Merely placing one's hands on a stolen vehicle with the intent to enter as a passenger is insufficient to establish such possession.
Facts:
- Keith Martin drove up in a car and called over the defendant, McCoy.
- McCoy approached the car with the intent of getting inside to go for a ride.
- McCoy admitted that he believed the car was or was likely to be stolen.
- McCoy put his hands on the car.
- Before McCoy could enter the vehicle, a police officer ordered him to freeze.
- Upon seeing the police, McCoy ran.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant McCoy was indicted for receiving a stolen automobile in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:20-7.
- McCoy pled guilty in the Law Division (the trial court of first instance) pursuant to a plea agreement.
- Before sentencing, McCoy filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied.
- The trial court sentenced McCoy in accordance with the plea agreement.
- McCoy appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division (the intermediate appellate court), arguing the factual basis for his plea was insufficient.
- The Appellate Division majority reversed the conviction and remanded the case, finding the facts did not establish McCoy had 'received' the vehicle. One judge dissented.
- The State, as appellant, filed an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of New Jersey based on the dissent in the Appellate Division.
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 defendant acquire possession of a stolen automobile, for the purposes of the receiving stolen property statute, by placing his hands on the vehicle with the admitted intent to ride in it, knowing that it was probably stolen?
Opinions:
Majority - Pollock, J.
No. A defendant does not acquire possession of a stolen automobile under these circumstances because such actions are insufficient to demonstrate the intentional dominion and control required for possession. The key elements for the offense of receiving stolen property are knowledge that the property is stolen and possession of it. Possession, which can be actual or constructive, is defined as 'intentional control and dominion.' While a passenger's knowing presence in a stolen car, coupled with other evidence like intent to use the car for personal benefit, may support an inference of constructive possession, McCoy was arrested before he even entered the vehicle. His act of placing his hands on the car with the intent to ride in it does not establish that he had the capacity to exercise control over the automobile at that moment. Although these facts may constitute a 'substantial step' toward the commission of the crime and thus support a charge for attempted receipt of stolen property, they do not satisfy the element of possession for the completed offense.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the actus reus, specifically the element of 'possession,' required for the crime of receiving stolen property in New Jersey. The court draws a critical distinction between preparatory acts and the completed offense, holding that actions falling short of establishing dominion and control, even with clear criminal intent, do not constitute possession. This decision sets a higher evidentiary bar for prosecutors in cases where a defendant has not yet fully taken control of stolen property, potentially channeling such cases toward charges of attempt rather than the substantive crime. It also provides a framework for analyzing passenger liability, suggesting that a knowing passenger inside a stolen vehicle may be found to have constructive possession, thereby guiding future judicial analysis in similar fact patterns.
Unlock the full brief for State v. McCoy