P. v. Ramirez
Defendant was convicted by a jury of receiving or possessing stolen propertya carin violation of Penal Code section 496d,[1]grand theft of the cars tires and wheel rims in violation of sections 484/487, subdivision (a), and resisting a peace officer in violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1). Defendant was removing the tires and wheels from the car when he was seen by police and arrested, and, he asserts, he was to be paid $20 by his neighbor for performing this task.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by excluding in limine certain witness statements based on the hearsay rule. Defendant contends the statements were not hearsay but instead were circumstantial evidence of his state of mind and lack of knowledge that the car had actually been stolen. He further contends that he was deprived of the constitutional right to a present a defense by exclusion of the evidence and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. He also argues that it was error under section 496, subdivision (a), for him to have been convicted of both receiving and stealing the same property, a contention that the People concede. Court reject defendants contentions regarding the excluded witness statements but we modify the judgment to strike the theft conviction. In all other respects, Court affirm.
Comments on P. v. Ramirez