## Facts

- Electrical conduit worth about $4,500 was stolen from John Taft in Ventura on March 3, 1959.
- Los Angeles police arrested William Hall on March 4 while he sat near a truck containing the conduit; police seized the truck and conduit and took them to the station.
- Hall told police he had an understanding with Hidalgo to buy electrical materials Hall could obtain and that they had prior transactions.
- Under police supervision, Hall called Hidalgo multiple times to arrange delivery; an officer monitored the calls and the arrangements supported an inference defendants knew the conduit was stolen.
- Police kept the truck and conduit under exclusive control while allowing Hall to drive the truck to the agreed location with officers following.
- Rojas appeared, took control of the truck and conduit, and began unloading; police then arrested Rojas and Hidalgo.
- Rojas made statements indicating he knew the conduit was stolen.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants could be convicted of receiving stolen property when, at the time of receipt, the police had already recovered the goods so they were no longer “stolen.”
2. Whether defendants’ conduct supported liability for attempted receipt of stolen property despite the lack of a “stolen property” element at the moment of transfer.
3. Whether the theft could be attributed to defendants via an “agency” theory to complete the receiving offense before police recovery.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held the completed offense of receiving stolen property was not proved because the conduit had lost its stolen character once recovered and held under exclusive police control.
- The court held defendants were guilty of attempting to receive stolen property because they intended to receive stolen goods and took direct steps beyond preparation.
- The court rejected the prosecution’s theory that the thief acted as defendants’ agent such that the receiving offense was complete upon the thief’s asportation.
- The court ordered the findings modified from receiving stolen property to attempting to receive stolen property and reversed and remanded for entry of lawful judgments or probation orders and resentencing consistent with the modified finding.
- Other asserted trial errors did not warrant a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Receiving stolen property requires that the property be “stolen” at the time the defendant receives it; police recovery and exclusive control can terminate the property’s stolen status.
- A defendant may be convicted of attempt when the defendant intends to commit the target offense and performs direct acts toward its completion, even if completion is impossible due to unknown facts eliminating an element at the time of execution.
- “Impossibility” based on circumstances unknown to the actor does not bar attempt liability when the actor’s intent and conduct would constitute the offense if the circumstances were as the actor believed.
- The thief and the receiver are distinct for purposes of receiving-stolen-property liability; attributing the theft to the receiver to “complete” receipt without an act of receiving conflicts with the statutory receipt requirement.

## Conclusion

Because the conduit was no longer stolen once police recovered and controlled it, defendants could not be convicted of the completed crime of receiving stolen property, but their intent and substantial steps toward taking possession supported convictions for attempted receipt, requiring modification of the findings and remand for resentencing.


People v. Rojas, 55 Cal. 2d 252 (Cal. 1961)