Can a minor be found guilty of possession of stolen hubcaps under section 496 of the Criminal Code?

Appellant's contention that he did not know of, or consent to, the placement of the hubcaps in the trunk, and therefore did not 'receive' them, does not defeat the applicability of the section. Even if the property were originally placed in the car without appellant's consent he could be convicted of receiving the stolen property if he knew that it were concealed there. People v. Rossi (1936) 15 Cal.App.2d 180, 59 P.2d 206 states: 'It is not necessary to constitute receipt of stolen property that the accused receive the physical possession of the property. If * * * [it] had been concealed upon the * * * premises by others with his knowledge or consent, that would be sufficient to justify the conviction.' (P. 182, 59 P.2d 207.)

The application of the statute in the instant case, however, as we shall show, deprived appellant of the protection of a constitutional right and worked prejudicial error. Since conviction for violation of section 496 compels proof of knowledge that the prperty had been stolen, the statute, in eliminating such proof in the prescribed circumstance, reverses the presumption of innocence. The statute also applies not only to the purchase of stolen property from a minor under 18 years of age but to the receipt of any such property. The statute likewise covers such receipt of any property; it is not confined to the acceptance of 'an article that has been or is likely to be made an instrument of crime * * *.' (People v. Scott (1944) 24 Cal.2d 774, 781, 151 P.2d 517, 521.)