California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Martinez, 103 Cal.Rptr. 451, 27 Cal.App.3d 131 (Cal. App. 1972):
The People rely on People v. Marquez, 237 Cal.App.2d 627, 633--637, 47 Cal.Rptr. 166, and subsequent cases, which hold that although ordinarily a thief cannot be guilty of receiving the property he has stolen, the prosecution need not affirmatively establish that a defendant found in possession of stolen property did not also steal the property. The People argue from that premise, apparently, that therefore whenever a defendant is not shown to have been a thief, he can be charged with receiving stolen property. This logic is absurd. There still must be some evidence of the basic elements of the crime charged. In every case relied on by the People, there was proof that the defendant was found in possession. There is no such proof in the instant case.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.