California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Allen, 21 Cal.4th 846, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 279, 984 P.2d 486 (Cal. 1999):
[89 Cal.Rptr.2d 284]
To begin with, in a series of cases the defendant stretched the rule to its limit by contending that it meant he could not be convicted of receiving stolen property unless the prosecution affirmatively proved, as an element of that crime, that he did not also steal the property. Although earlier dicta seemed to support the contention, it was ultimately rejected both in cases in which the defendant was charged only with receiving stolen property (e.g., People v. Marquez (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 627, 633-636, 47 Cal.Rptr. 166) and in cases in which he was charged with receiving stolen property and with its theft, but was acquitted of the latter (e.g., People v. Williams (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 952, 958-959, 61 Cal.Rptr. 238): both held the prosecution could convict the defendant of receiving stolen property without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not the thief.[89 Cal.Rptr.2d 284]
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.