What is the legal test for a motion to dismiss a charge of receiving stolen property?

"In determining if charges in an information can withstand a motion under [Penal Code] section 995, neither the superior court nor the appellate court may reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses. [Citations.] Ordinarily, if there is some evidence in support of the information, the reviewing court will not inquire into its sufficiency. [Citations.] Thus, an indictment or information should be set aside only when there is a total absence of evidence to support a necessary element of the offense charged. [Citations.] [] 'Although there must be some showing as to the existence of each element of the charged crime [citation] such a showing may be made by means of circumstantial evidence supportive of reasonable inferences on the part of the magistrate.' [Citation.] 'Every legitimate inference that may be drawn from the evidence must be drawn in favor of the information.' [Citations.] Thus, the ultimate test is that ' " '[a]n information will not be set aside or prosecution thereon prohibited if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it.' " ' [Citation.] [] We review the evidence in support of the information to determine whether as a matter of law it is sufficient, not whether the trial court's ruling was reasonable. [Citations.]" (People v. Superior Court (Jurado) (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1226, original italics.)

Page 10

Defendant's motion to dismiss conceded that the evidence was sufficient to hold defendant to answer for three counts of petty theft. In reliance on People v. Ceja, supra, 49 Cal.4th 1, defendant argued that, because an accused may not be convicted of both theft and receiving stolen property as to the same property, and because, when an accused has been improperly convicted of both, the theft conviction takes precedence over the receiving stolen property conviction, then holding an accused to answer on theft charges precludes the prosecution from charging counts of receiving stolen property in lieu of theft charges as to the same property. In other words, if the evidence supports a charge of theft, "that theft trumps the 496 [receiving stolen property] . . . ."