Reset A A Font size: Print

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

IN RE: JAMES J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES J., Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 24418.

Decided: April 07, 1982

State Public Defender Quin Denvir, State Public Defender Jeffrey J. Stuetz, Deputy State Public Defender, Pamela Slick, Panel Attorney, San Diego, for appellant. George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Daniel J. Kremer, Assistant Atty. Gen., A. Wells Petersen, Jesus Rodriguez, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

James J. appeals an order continuing him as a ward of the juvenile court (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 602) after finding he stole a shotgun (Pen.Code, § 487, subd. 3).

James took Patrick Farley's shotgun from Farley's home when no one was there.   Charged with burglary (Pen.Code, § 459) and grand theft (Pen.Code, § 487.3), he claimed he only borrowed the weapon to frighten some youths who had attacked him.   The juvenile court found James had not committed burglary but had committed trespass (Pen.Code, § 602(l )) and grand theft.

 Stating the record most favorably to himself, contrary to the rules on appeal, James contends the court's finding he committed theft is not supported by substantial evidence because he did not intend to permanently deprive Farley of the shotgun.  (See People v. Turner, 267 Cal.App.2d 440, 73 Cal.Rptr. 263.)   By finding James trespassed but did not burgle, the court necessarily found James did not intend to permanently deprive Farley of the shotgun when he took it.   However, where, as here, the taking is trespassory, a theft occurs if the defendant later develops an intent to steal (People v. Pico, 62 Cal. 50).   Such an intent arises where the defendant deliberately exposes the property to a substantial risk of permanent loss (Perkins, Criminal Law (2d ed. 1969) p. 267).   Here James left the gun with a casual acquaintance from Mexico City, whose last name he did not know, and who refused to give James his temporary address in Chula Vista.   Predictably, his new friend did not return the gun and later disappeared.   Under these circumstances, the court could reasonably find James displayed an intent to permanently deprive Farley of his shotgun by deliberately exposing it to an “unreasonable risk of permanent loss.”  (Perkins, supra, at p. 268.)

Order affirmed.

 GERALD BROWN, Presiding Justice.


Copied to clipboard