Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Watt

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

September 18, 2014

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BRYAN ALEXANDER WATT, Defendant and Appellant.

[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION [*]]

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. No. RIF1202797 Michael B. Donner, Judge.

Page 1216

COUNSEL

Joshua H. Schraer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Page 1217

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Parag Agrawal, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

RAMIREZ P. J.

A jury convicted defendant, Bryan Alexander Watt, of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a))[1] and he was granted probation. He appeals, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, the jury was misinstructed and two of his probation terms are invalid. We disagree with his first two contentions, agree with the third, and, therefore, strike the probation terms at issue while affirming the remainder of the judgment. The facts are reported in connection with the first issue discussed.

1. Insufficient Evidence of Knowledge that the Property Was Stolen and that Defendant Possessed the Property [*]

2. Jury Instruction

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, at the request of both parties, [6] that defendant would not be guilty of receiving stolen property if he believed that the piece of equipment and the runway metal were dumped only if that belief was reasonable. Specifically, the jury was instructed with a modified version of CALCRIM No. 3406, which provided, in pertinent part, “The defendant is not guilty of... receiving stolen property if he... did not have the intent or mental state required to commit the crime because he reasonably did not know a fact or reasonably and mistakenly believed a fact. [¶] If the defendant’s conduct would have been lawful under the facts as he reasonably believed them to be, he did not commit the crime of... receiving stolen property. If you find that the defendant believed that the [piece of equipment] and pieces of [runway ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.