People v. Cook case brief summary
39 Cal.Rptr. 802 (1964)
CASE FACTS
Defendant, who owned a car, allowed his friend to use defendant's name and the car as a trade in for a new car at a car dealership. Defendant's friend also gave the dealership a spurious check for $ 300.00. The trial court convicted defendant for taking a vehicle without the owner's consent in violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 10851. The trial court acquitted defendant of grand theft auto under Cal. Veh. Code § 487(3). On appeal, defendant contended that the new car was taken with the consent of the car dealership.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, which convicted defendant for taking a vehicle without the owner's consent, and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to dismiss.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
39 Cal.Rptr. 802 (1964)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant sought review of a judgment
from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which
convicted defendant for taking a vehicle without the owner's consent
in violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 10851.CASE FACTS
Defendant, who owned a car, allowed his friend to use defendant's name and the car as a trade in for a new car at a car dealership. Defendant's friend also gave the dealership a spurious check for $ 300.00. The trial court convicted defendant for taking a vehicle without the owner's consent in violation of Cal. Veh. Code § 10851. The trial court acquitted defendant of grand theft auto under Cal. Veh. Code § 487(3). On appeal, defendant contended that the new car was taken with the consent of the car dealership.
DISCUSSION
- The court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the cause to the trial court with directions to dismiss.
- The court held that because defendant was acquitted of violating § 487(3), a species of theft, which included in the definition of which was fraud or false pretense, any contentions regarding fraud were deemed concluded.
- Thus fraud could not be considered as established or as vitiating the consent that was in fact given.
- The court held that consent having been given, there was not a violation of § 10851.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, which convicted defendant for taking a vehicle without the owner's consent, and remanded the case to the trial court with directions to dismiss.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment