## Facts

- Frank Billy Ray Cook was charged with grand theft auto (Penal Code § 487(3)) and unlawful taking or driving of a vehicle (Vehicle Code § 10851) arising from acquisition of a 1959 Mercury from a car dealer, Frahm Pontiac.
- Maron Satchell, posing as Cook, negotiated the transaction, signed paperwork as Cook, and used Cook’s 1950 Buick (and DMV paperwork in Cook’s name) as a trade-in.
- Satchell also provided a $300 check that was not genuine, and the dealer processed paperwork to register the Mercury in Cook’s name.
- Dealer employees identified Cook as present at the dealership with two others (including Cook’s brother), while the defense contended Cook was not present and offered an alibi supported by Cook’s mother; Cook’s brother disputed the dealer’s identification.
- The jury acquitted Cook of grand theft auto but convicted him of Vehicle Code § 10851; the trial court denied a new trial and probation and imposed a prison sentence.
- Cook appealed from the judgment of conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether Vehicle Code § 10851’s requirement that a vehicle be taken or driven “without the consent of the owner” is satisfied when the owner voluntarily delivers the vehicle but does so because of fraud, trick, or misrepresentation.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the Vehicle Code § 10851 conviction and remanded.
- The court held that voluntarily given consent remains “consent” for § 10851 even if induced by fraud or misrepresentation.
- Because the dealer consented to the transfer of possession of the Mercury, the prosecution failed to prove the “without consent” element required by § 10851.

## Legal Principles

- Vehicle Code § 10851 targets unauthorized taking or driving; it requires proof that the vehicle was taken or driven without the owner’s consent.
- Consent is not negated for § 10851 merely because it was induced by fraud in the inducement (misrepresentations affecting the decision to transfer possession), absent statutory language treating fraud as vitiating consent.
- Where the Legislature intends fraud or false pretenses to substitute for lack of consent, it states so expressly (as in theft statutes addressing acquisition by false pretenses), and § 10851 contains no comparable provision.
- An acquittal on a theft-by-fraud charge reinforces that the State may not recharacterize the same conduct to satisfy § 10851’s distinct “without consent” element.

## Conclusion

The court reversed Cook’s § 10851 conviction because the dealer’s voluntary delivery of the vehicle—though procured by misrepresentation—constituted owner consent under the statute, defeating the required element that the taking or driving be “without the consent of the owner.”


People v. Cook, 228 Cal. App. 2d 716, 39 Cal. Rptr. 802 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964)