## Facts

- Jerry M. Reznick, a mail clerk in the Los Angeles office of the California Attorney General, removed a copy of a Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement personnel roster listing names, home addresses, and home telephone numbers of undercover narcotics agents statewide.
- The roster copy was not marked “secret” or “confidential.”
- Reznick brought the roster to the *Los Angeles Free Press* and met with reporter Gerald Robert Applebaum, asking whether the paper would publish it; Applebaum said he was unsure and would consult an editor.
- Applebaum stated that, subject to approval, the paper’s standard fee for information used in an article was $20; Reznick requested that the source not be disclosed.
- About a week later, Reznick returned and left the roster on Applebaum’s desk without a promise of publication; the roster was later published.
- Fingerprints of Reznick, Applebaum, and editor/owner Arthur Glick Kunkin were found on the document.
- Defendants (Kunkin, Applebaum, and the newspaper) were indicted under California Penal Code § 496 for receiving stolen property; the jury convicted each defendant on one count.
- Kunkin and Applebaum received probationary dispositions; all defendants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence on the knowledge element.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the element under Penal Code § 496 that defendants knew the roster was “stolen,” i.e., obtained by theft requiring intent to permanently deprive the owner of property.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment of conviction and the probation orders.
- The court held there was no substantial evidence that defendants knew the roster had been obtained by theft in the legal sense required by § 496.
- The court concluded that suspicion about sensitivity or possible repercussions from publication did not establish knowledge that the document was “stolen” property.

## Legal Principles

- Receiving stolen property under Penal Code § 496 requires proof that the defendant received, concealed, or withheld property obtained by theft or extortion and knew the property was so obtained.
- “Stolen” for § 496 purposes is tied to the underlying law of theft; theft by larceny requires intent to permanently deprive the owner of property.
- To prove the knowledge element, the prosecution must present substantial evidence that the defendant knew facts showing the property was obtained by theft as defined by law, not merely that the material was sensitive or likely to cause “trouble.”
- Where a person removes only a copy of a document and the record does not show intent to permanently deprive the owner of use or possession, evidence may be insufficient to establish that the item was “stolen” and insufficient to show the receiver’s knowledge of theft.

## Conclusion

Because the prosecution failed to present substantial evidence that defendants knew the roster had been obtained by theft requiring intent to permanently deprive, an essential element of receiving stolen property under Penal Code § 496 was not proved, and the convictions and related probation orders were reversed.


People v. Kunkin, 507 P.2d 1392 (Cal. 1973)