{"id":1313,"date":"2017-09-27T17:44:13","date_gmt":"2017-09-27T17:44:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-fmcc-criminallaw\/?post_type=chapter&p=1313"},"modified":"2019-01-19T19:55:28","modified_gmt":"2019-01-19T19:55:28","slug":"11-2-extortion-robbery-and-receiving-stolen-property","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-sccc-criminallaw\/chapter\/11-2-extortion-robbery-and-receiving-stolen-property\/","title":{"raw":"11.2 Extortion, Robbery, and Receiving Stolen Property","rendered":"11.2 Extortion, Robbery, and Receiving Stolen Property"},"content":{"raw":"
\"Image<\/a><\/div>\r\n
https:\/\/youtu.be\/ny30O2sQAOk<\/a><\/div>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nLearning Objectives\r\n
\r\n
    \r\n \t
  1. Define the criminal intent element required for extortion.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. Identify a potential defense to extortion.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. Define the attendant circumstances required for extortion.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. Define the harm element required for extortion.<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. Analyze extortion grading.<\/li>\r\n \t
  6. Identify the differences between robbery, larceny, and extortion.<\/li>\r\n \t
  7. Analyze robbery grading.<\/li>\r\n \t
  8. Define the criminal act element required for receiving stolen property.<\/li>\r\n \t
  9. Define the criminal intent element required for receiving stolen property.<\/li>\r\n \t
  10. Identify a failure of proof or affirmative defense to receiving stolen property in some jurisdictions.<\/li>\r\n \t
  11. Define the attendant circumstances and harm element required for receiving stolen property.<\/li>\r\n \t
  12. Analyze receiving stolen property grading.<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n

    Extortion<\/h2>\r\n

    All states and the federal government criminalize extortion<\/a><\/span>, which is also called blackmail<\/strong> (K.S.A. \u00a7 21-3428, 2011). As stated previously, the Model Penal Code criminalizes theft by extortion and grades it the same as all other nonforcible theft offenses (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a0223.4). Extortion is typically nonviolent, but the elements of extortion are very similar to robbery<\/strong>, which is considered a forcible theft offense. Robbery is discussed shortly.<\/p>\r\n

    Extortion has the elements of criminal act, criminal intent, attendant circumstances, causation, and harm, as is explored in Section 11.2.1 \"Extortion\"<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Extortion Act<\/h2>\r\n

    The criminal act<\/strong> element required for extortion is typically the theft of property accomplished by a threat<\/strong> to cause future<\/em> harm to the victim, including the threat to inflict bodily injury, accuse anyone of committing a crime, or reveal a secret that would expose the victim to hatred, contempt, or ridicule (Ga. Code \u00a7 16-8-16, 2011). The Model Penal Code criminalizes theft by extortion when the defendant obtains property of another by threatening to inflict bodily injury on anyone, commit any criminal offense, accuse anyone of a criminal offense, expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or impair his credit and business repute, take or withhold action as an official, bring about a strike or boycott, testify with respect to another\u2019s legal claim, or inflict any other harm that would not benefit the actor (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a0223.4). Note that some of these acts could be legal<\/em>, as long as they are not performed with the unlawful intent to steal.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of Extortion Act<\/h2>\r\n

    Rodney tells Lindsey that he will report her illegal drug trafficking to local law enforcement if she does not pay him fifteen thousand dollars. Rodney has probably committed the criminal act element required for extortion in most jurisdictions. Note that Rodney\u2019s threat to expose Lindsey\u2019s illegal activities is actually desirable<\/em> behavior when performed with the intent to eliminate or reduce crime. However, under these circumstances, Rodney\u2019s act is most likely criminal<\/em> because it is supported by the intent to steal fifteen thousand dollars from Lindsey.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Extortion Intent<\/h2>\r\n

    The criminal intent element required for extortion is typically the specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong> to commit the criminal act and to unlawfully deprive the victim of property permanently<\/em> (Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions \u00a7\u00a753a-119(5), 2011). This intent requirement is similar to the criminal intent element required for larceny and false pretenses theft, as discussed in Section 11 \"Consolidated Theft Intent\"<\/a>. Some jurisdictions only require general intent<\/strong> or knowingly<\/strong> to perform the criminal act (Ariz. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 13-1804).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of a Case Lacking Extortion Intent<\/h2>\r\n

    Review the example with Rodney and Lindsey in Section 11 \"Example of Extortion Act\"<\/a>. Change the example and assume that Rodney asks Lindsey to loan him the fifteen thousand dollars so that he can make a balloon payment due on his mortgage. Lindsey refuses. Rodney thereafter threatens to expose Lindsey\u2019s drug trafficking if she doesn\u2019t loan him the money. In many jurisdictions, Rodney may not have the criminal intent element required for extortion. Although Rodney performed the criminal act of threatening to report Lindsey for a crime, he did so with the intent to borrow<\/em> money from Lindsey. Thus Rodney did not act with the specific intent or purposely to permanently deprive Lindsey of property, which could operate as a failure of proof<\/strong> or affirmative defense<\/strong> to extortion in many jurisdictions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Extortion Attendant Circumstance<\/h2>\r\n

    Extortion is a form of theft, so it has the same attendant circumstance<\/strong> required in consolidated theft statutes\u2014the property stolen belongs to another<\/em>. In many jurisdictions, it is an affirmative defense<\/strong> to extortion that the property taken by threat to expose a secret or accuse anyone of a criminal offense is taken honestly<\/em>, as compensation for property, or restitution or indemnification for harm done by the secret or crime (Ga. Code \u00a7 16-8-16, 2011). The Model Penal Code provides an affirmative defense to extortion by threat of accusation of a criminal offense, exposure of a secret, or threat to take or withhold action as an official if the property obtained was \u201chonestly claimed as restitution or indemnification for harm done in the circumstances to which such accusation, exposure, lawsuit or other official action relates, or as compensation for property or lawful services\u201d (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a0223.4).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of Extortion Affirmative Defense<\/h2>\r\n

    Tara, a real estate broker, hires Trent to be a real estate sales agent in her small realty office. Tara decides she wants to get the property listing of a competitor by using Trent to obtain information. Tara tells Trent to pretend he is a buyer interested in the property. She asks him to make an appointment with the competitor, ask a lot of questions about the owner of the property, and thereafter bring Tara the information. Tara promises to pay Trent one thousand dollars for his time and effort. Trent spends several hours performing this task and thereafter demands his one thousand dollars payment. Tara tells Trent she is experiencing \u201ctough times\u201d and can\u2019t afford to pay him. Trent threatens to tell Tara\u2019s competitor what she is up to if she doesn\u2019t pay him the one thousand dollars. Trent has probably not<\/em> committed extortion in many jurisdictions. Although Trent threatened to expose Tara\u2019s secret if she didn\u2019t pay him one thousand dollars, Trent honestly<\/em> believed he was owed this money for a job he performed that was directly related<\/em> to the secret. Thus in many jurisdictions, Trent has an affirmative defense<\/strong> that the money demanded was compensation for services and not the subject of unlawful theft by extortion.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Attendant Circumstance of Victim Consent<\/h2>\r\n

    Extortion also requires the attendant circumstance<\/strong> of victim consent. With extortion, the victim consensually transfers the property based on fear<\/strong> inspired by the defendant\u2019s threat (Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions No. CR 5-34, 2011).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of Attendant Circumstance of Victim Consent for Extortion<\/h2>\r\n

    Review the example with Rodney and Lindsey in Section 11 \"Example of Extortion Act\"<\/a>. Assume that Lindsey grudgingly gives Rodney the fifteen thousand dollars so that he will not report her drug trafficking. In this example, Lindsey is consensually<\/em> transferring the money to Rodney to prevent him from making good on his threat. Thus the attendant circumstance of victim consent<\/strong> based on fear<\/strong> is most likely present, and Rodney could be subject to prosecution for and conviction of extortion in most jurisdictions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Extortion Causation<\/h2>\r\n

    The criminal act must be the factual<\/strong> and legal cause<\/strong> of extortion harm, which is defined in Section 11 \"Extortion Harm\"<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Extortion Harm<\/h2>\r\n

    The defendant must obtain<\/strong> property belonging to another for the completed crime of extortion in most jurisdictions (Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions No. CR 5-34, 2011). If the defendant commits the criminal act of threatening the victim with the appropriate criminal intent, but the victim does not actually transfer the property to the defendant, the defendant can only be charged with attempted<\/em> extortion (Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions No. CR 5-32, 2011).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of a Case Lacking Extortion Harm<\/h2>\r\n

    Review the example with Rodney and Lindsey in Section 11 \"Example of Extortion Act\"<\/a>. Assume that after Rodney threatens to report Lindsey\u2019s drug trafficking to local law enforcement, Lindsey calls local law enforcement, turns herself in for drug trafficking, and also reports Rodney for making the threat. In this case, because Rodney did not \u201cobtain\u201d property by threat, the crime of extortion is not complete, and attempted<\/em> extortion would be the appropriate charge in most jurisdictions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Figure 11.4<\/span> Diagram of Defenses to Extortion<\/p>\r\n\"Diagram<\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Extortion Grading<\/h2>\r\n

    Extortion is generally graded<\/strong> as a felony in most jurisdictions (Or. Rev. Stat. \u00a7 164.075, 2011). As stated previously, the Model Penal Code grades extortion under its consolidated theft offense.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Robbery<\/h2>\r\n

    Robbery<\/a><\/span> was the first common-law theft crime. The criminalization of robbery was a natural progression from other common-law crimes against the person because robbery always involves force, violence, or threat and could pose a risk of injury or death to the robbery victim, defendant, or other innocent bystanders. Recall from Chapter 9 \"Criminal Homicide\"<\/a> that robbery is generally a serious felony that is included in most felony murder statutes as a predicate felony for first-degree<\/strong> felony murder. When robbery does not result in death, it is typically graded more severely than theft under a consolidated theft statute. Robbery grading is discussed shortly.<\/p>\r\n

    The elements of robbery are very similar to the elements of larceny<\/strong> and extortion<\/strong>. For the purpose of brevity, only the elements of robbery that are distinguishable from larceny and extortion are analyzed in depth. Robbery has the elements of criminal act, attendant circumstances, criminal intent, causation, and harm, as is explored in Section 11.2 \"Extortion, Robbery, and Receiving Stolen Property\"<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Robbery Act<\/h2>\r\n

    It is the criminal act element that primarily distinguishes robbery from larceny and extortion. The criminal act<\/strong> element required for robbery is a taking of personal property by force<\/strong> or threat<\/strong> of force (Ind. Code \u00a7 35-42-5-1, 2011). Force is generally physical force. The force can be slight, but it must be more than what is required to gain control over and move the property (S.W. v. State, 2011). Many jurisdictions require force during<\/em> the taking, which includes the use of force to prevent the victim from reclaiming the property, or during escape (State v. Handburgh, 2011). The Model Penal Code requires force or threat \u201cin the course of committing a theft\u201d and defines this as occurring in \u201can attempt to commit theft or in flight after the attempt or commission\u201d (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a0222.1(1)). Threat for robbery is a threat to inflict imminent<\/em> force (Ala. Code \u00a7 13A-8-43, 2011).<\/p>\r\n

    While larceny and extortion also require a taking, the defendant typically accomplishes the larceny taking by stealth, or a false representation of fact. In extortion, the defendant accomplishes the taking by a threat of future<\/em> harm that may or may not involve force<\/em>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of Robbery Act<\/h2>\r\n

    Review the example given in Section 11 \"Example of Extortion Act\"<\/a> with Rodney and Lindsey. In this example, Rodney threatened to expose Lindsey\u2019s drug trafficking if she didn\u2019t pay him fifteen thousand dollars. Change the example so that Rodney tells Lindsey he will kill her if she doesn\u2019t write him a check for fifteen thousand dollars. Rodney exemplifies his threat by pointing to a bulge in his front jacket pocket that appears to be a weapon. In this scenario, Rodney has most likely committed the criminal act element required for robbery<\/strong>, not<\/em> extortion<\/strong>. Rodney\u2019s threat is a threat of immediate force<\/em>. Compare this threat to Rodney\u2019s threat to expose Lindsey\u2019s drug trafficking, which is a threat of future<\/em> harm that relates to Lindsey\u2019s arrest<\/em> for a crime, rather than force.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of a Case Lacking Robbery Act<\/h2>\r\n

    Peter, a jewelry thief, notices that Cheryl is wearing a diamond ring. Peter walks up to Cheryl and asks her if she wants him to read her palm. Cheryl shrugs her shoulders and says, \u201cSure! What have I got to lose?\u201d While Peter does an elaborate palm reading, he surreptitiously slips Cheryl\u2019s diamond ring off her finger and into his pocket. Peter has probably not<\/em> committed the criminal act element required for robbery in this case. Although Peter used a certain amount of physical force to remove Cheryl\u2019s ring, he did not use any force beyond<\/em> what was required to gain control over Cheryl\u2019s property and move it into his possession. Thus Peter has probably committed the criminal act element required for larceny<\/strong> theft, not<\/em> robbery<\/strong>, and is subject to less severe sentencing for this lower-level offense.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Robbery Attendant Circumstances<\/h2>\r\n

    Another difference between robbery and larceny or extortion is the attendant circumstances<\/strong> requirement(s). Robbery requires the same attendant circumstance required for both larceny and extortion\u2014that the property taken belongs to another. It also has the same attendant circumstance as larceny\u2014that the defendant accomplish the taking against the victim\u2019s will and without consent. However, robbery has one additional attendant circumstance, which is that the property be taken from the victim\u2019s person<\/strong> or presence<\/strong> (Cal. Penal Code \u00a7 211). The property does not need to be in the actual physical possession of the victim, as long as it is under the victim\u2019s control<\/em> (Jones v. State, 2011). Thus if the victim could have prevented the taking if not for the force, violence, or threat posed by the defendant, this attendant circumstance is present (Jones v. State, 2011).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of Robbery Attendant Circumstances<\/h2>\r\n

    Review the example given in Section 11 \"Example of Robbery Act\"<\/a> with Rodney and Lindsey. In this example, Rodney tells Lindsey he will kill her if she doesn\u2019t write him a check for fifteen thousand dollars. Change this example so that Rodney knows Lindsey has recently withdrawn fifteen thousand dollars in cash from the bank. Rodney demands the cash, tells Lindsey he will kill her if she doesn\u2019t give it to him, and gestures toward a bulge in his front jacket pocket that appears to be a weapon. Lindsey tells Rodney, \u201cThe money is in my purse, but if you take it, you will be ruining my life!\u201d and points to her purse, which is on the kitchen table a few feet away. Rodney walks over to the table, opens Lindsey\u2019s purse, and removes a large envelope stuffed with bills. In this scenario, the attendant circumstances for robbery appear to be present. Rodney took the property of another without consent. Although the money was not on Lindsey\u2019s person, it was in her presence<\/strong> and subject to her control<\/strong>. If Rodney had not threatened Lindsey\u2019s life, she could have prevented<\/em> the taking. Thus Rodney has most likely committed robbery and is subject to prosecution for and conviction of this offense.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Robbery Intent<\/h2>\r\n

    The criminal intent element required for robbery is the same as the criminal intent element required for larceny and extortion in many jurisdictions. The defendant must have the specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong> to commit the criminal act and to deprive the victim of the property permanently<\/em> (Metheny v. State, 2011). Some jurisdictions do not require the intent to permanently deprive the victim of property and include temporary<\/em> takings in the robbery statute (Fla. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 812.13, 2011).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of Robbery Intent<\/h2>\r\n

    Review the example with Rodney and Lindsey in Section 11 \"Example of a Case Lacking Extortion Intent\"<\/a>. In this example, Rodney demands a loan from Lindsey in the amount of fifteen thousand dollars and threatens to expose her drug trafficking activities if she doesn\u2019t comply. Change this example so that Rodney tells Lindsey to loan him fifteen thousand dollars or he will kill her, gesturing at a bulge in his front jacket pocket that appears to be a weapon. In a jurisdiction that requires the criminal intent to permanently<\/strong> deprive the victim of property for robbery, Rodney does not have the appropriate criminal intent. In a jurisdiction that allows for the intent to temporarily<\/strong> deprive the victim of property for robbery, Rodney has the appropriate criminal intent and may be charged with and convicted of this offense.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Robbery Causation and Harm<\/h2>\r\n

    The criminal act supported by the criminal intent must be the factual<\/strong> and legal cause<\/strong> of the robbery harm<\/strong>, which is the same as the harm requirement for larceny and extortion: the property must be transferred to the defendant (Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions No. CR 4-141, 2011). In some jurisdictions, no<\/em> transfer of property needs to take place, and the crime is complete when the defendant employs the force or threat with the appropriate criminal intent (Williams v. State, 2011).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of Robbery Harm<\/h2>\r\n

    Review the example with Rodney and Lindsey in Section 11 \"Example of Robbery Attendant Circumstances\"<\/a>. In this example, Rodney threatens to kill Lindsey if she does not give him fifteen thousand dollars out of her purse and gestures to a bulge in his front jacket pocket that appears to be a weapon. Change this example so that Lindsey leaps off of the couch and tackles Rodney after his threat. She reaches into his pocket and determines that Rodney\u2019s \u201cgun\u201d is a plastic water pistol. Rodney manages to get out from under Lindsey and escapes. If Rodney and Lindsey are in a jurisdiction that requires a transfer of property for the harm element of robbery, Rodney has probably only committed attempted<\/em> robbery because Rodney did not get the chance to take the money out of Lindsey\u2019s purse. If Rodney and Lindsey are in a jurisdiction that does not<\/em> require a transfer of property for the harm element of robbery, Rodney may be subject to prosecution for and conviction of this offense.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n
    \r\n

    Figure 11.5<\/span> Diagram of Defenses to Robbery<\/p>\r\n\"Diagram<\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Robbery Grading<\/h2>\r\n

    As stated previously, robbery is generally graded<\/strong> as a serious felony that can serve as the predicate felony for first-degree felony murder (Cal. Penal Code \u00a7 189, 2011) and a strike in states that have three strikes statutes (Cal. Penal Code \u00a7 1192.7, 2011). Robbery grading is aggravated by the use of a weapon or when the defendant inflicts serious bodily injury (Tex. Penal Code \u00a7 29.03, 2011). The Model Penal Code grades robbery as a felony of the second degree, unless the actor attempts to kill anyone or purposely inflicts or attempts to inflict serious bodily injury, in which case it is graded as a felony of the first degree (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a0222.1(2)).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Table 11.2<\/span> Comparing Larceny, Extortion, and Robbery<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
    Crime<\/th>\r\nCriminal Act<\/th>\r\nCriminal Intent<\/th>\r\nAttendant Circumstance<\/th>\r\nHarm<\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/thead>\r\n
    Larceny<\/td>\r\nTaking by stealth or false representation of fact<\/td>\r\nSpecific or purposely to deprive the victim of property permanently*<\/td>\r\nVictim\u2019s property, lack of victim consent<\/td>\r\nProperty transfer<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Extortion<\/td>\r\nTaking by threat of future harm; not necessarily physical<\/td>\r\nSpecific or purposely to deprive the victim of property permanently*<\/td>\r\nVictim\u2019s property; the victim consents based on fear<\/td>\r\nProperty transfer<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    Robbery<\/td>\r\nTaking by force or threat of imminent force<\/td>\r\nSpecific or purposely to deprive the victim of property permanently*<\/td>\r\nVictim\u2019s property, lack of victim consent, property is taken from the victim\u2019s person or presence<\/td>\r\nProperty transfer**<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n
    *In some jurisdictions, the defendant can intend a temporary taking.<\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n
    **In some jurisdictions, the victim does not need to transfer the property to the defendant.<\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tfoot>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n
    \r\n

    Receiving Stolen Property<\/h2>\r\n

    All jurisdictions criminalize receiving stolen property<\/a><\/span>, to deter theft and to break up organized criminal enterprises that benefit from stealing and selling stolen goods. Receiving stolen property criminal statutes often are targeted at pawnbrokers or fences<\/a><\/span> who regularly buy and sell property that is the subject of one of the theft crimes discussed in the preceding sections. As stated, the Model Penal Code includes receiving stolen property in its consolidated theft offense (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0223.1, 223.6). Receiving stolen property has the elements of criminal act, criminal intent, attendant circumstances, causation, and harm, as is explored in Section 11.2.3 \"Receiving Stolen Property\"<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Receiving Stolen Property Act<\/h2>\r\n

    The criminal act<\/strong> element required for receiving stolen property in many jurisdictions is receiving, retaining, disposing of (Ala. Code \u00a7 13A-8-16, 2011), selling (Cal. Penal Code \u00a7 496, 2011), trafficking in (Fla. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 812.019, 2011), buying, or aiding in concealment (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266 \u00a7 60) of stolen personal property. The Model Penal Code defines the criminal act element as receiving, retaining, or disposing of stolen movable property (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a0223.6(1)). The criminal act does not generally require the defendant to be in actual physical possession<\/strong> of the property, as long as the defendant retains control<\/em> over the item(s) (Ga. Code \u00a7 16-8-7, 2011). This would be a constructive possession. The Model Penal Code defines receiving as \u201cacquiring possession, control or title, or lending on the security of the property\u201d (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a0223.6(1)). Note that the criminal act element of receiving stolen property includes both buying<\/strong> and selling<\/strong>. Thus dealers that regularly purchase and then sell stolen items can be prosecuted for both of these acts under the same statute.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of Receiving Stolen Property Act<\/h2>\r\n

    Chanel, a fence who deals in stolen designer perfume, arranges a sale between one of her thieves, Burt, and a regular customer, Sandra. Chanel directs Burt to drop off a shipment of one crate of the stolen perfume at Chanel\u2019s storage facility and gives Burt the key. Chanel pays Burt five thousand dollars for the perfume delivery. Chanel thereafter accepts a payment of ten thousand dollars from Sandra and gives Sandra another key with instructions to pick up the perfume the next day after it has been delivered. Chanel could probably be charged with and convicted of receiving stolen property in most jurisdictions. Although Chanel did not ever acquire actual possession<\/em> of the stolen designer perfume, Chanel had control<\/em> over the property or constructive possession through her storage facility. Chanel\u2019s acts of buying<\/strong> the perfume for five thousand dollars and then selling<\/strong> it for ten thousand dollars both would be criminalized under one<\/em> statute in many jurisdictions. Thus Chanel could be prosecuted for both<\/em> acts as separate charges of receiving stolen property.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Receiving Stolen Property Intent<\/h2>\r\n

    The criminal intent element required for receiving stolen property has two parts. First, the defendant must have the intent to commit the criminal act, which could be specific intent<\/strong> or purposely<\/strong>, general intent<\/strong> or knowingly<\/strong>, recklessly<\/strong>, or negligently<\/strong> to either buy-receive or sell-dispose of stolen personal property, depending on the jurisdiction. This means that the defendant must have actual knowledge<\/strong> that the property is stolen (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266 \u00a7 60, 2011), or the defendant must be aware or should be aware of a risk<\/strong> that the property is stolen (Ala. Code \u00a7 13A-8-16(a), 2011). The Model Penal Code requires the defendant to purposely commit the act knowing<\/em> that the property is stolen or believing<\/em> that the property has probably<\/em> been stolen (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a0223.6(1)). The Model Penal Code also provides a presumption<\/strong> of knowledge or belief when the defendant is a dealer<\/strong>, which is defined as a \u201cperson in the business of buying or selling goods including a pawnbroker,\u201d and has been found in possession or control of property stolen from two or more persons on more than one occasion, or has received stolen property in another transaction within the year preceding the transaction charged, or acquires the property for consideration far below its reasonable value (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a0223.6(2)). Many state statutes have a similar provision (Ala. Code \u00a7 13A-8-16, 2011).<\/p>\r\n

    The second aspect of criminal intent for receiving stolen property is the defendant\u2019s specific intent<\/strong> or purposeful<\/strong> desire to deprive the victim of the property permanently<\/em>, which is required in some jurisdictions (Hawaii Criminal Jury Instructions No. 10.00, 10.20, 2011). This creates a failure of proof<\/strong> or affirmative defense<\/strong> that the defendant received and retained the stolen property with the intent to return<\/em> it to the true owner (Ga. Code \u00a7 16-8-7(a), 2011). The Model Penal Code also provides a defense if \u201cthe property is received, retained, or disposed of with purpose to restore it to the owner\u201d (Model Penal Code \u00a7\u00a0223.6(1)).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of Receiving Stolen Property Intent<\/h2>\r\n

    Chip\u2019s iPod breaks, so he decides to go to the local electronics store and buy a new one. As he is approaching the store, Heather saunters over from a nearby alley and asks him if he wants to buy a brand new iPod for ten dollars. Suspicious of the price, Chip asks Heather to see the iPod. She hands it to him, and he notices that the box looks like it has been tampered with and a price tag removed. He shrugs, takes ten dollars out of his wallet, and hands it to Heather in exchange for the iPod. In jurisdictions that require actual knowledge<\/strong> that the property is stolen, Chip probably does not have the appropriate criminal intent for receiving stolen property because he did not know Heather and had no way of knowing if Heather was selling him stolen property. In jurisdictions that require awareness of a risk<\/strong> that the property is stolen, Chip may have the appropriate criminal intent because he knew the price was too low and noticed that the box had been tampered with to remove evidence of an actual price or vendor.<\/p>\r\n

    Change the example so that Chip is a pawnshop broker, and Heather brings the iPod into his shop to pawn for the price of ten dollars. In many jurisdictions, if Chip accepts the iPod to pawn, this creates a presumption<\/strong> of receiving stolen property criminal intent. Chip is considered a dealer, and in many jurisdictions, dealers who acquire property for consideration that they know<\/em> is far below<\/em> the reasonable value are subject to this type of presumption.<\/p>\r\n

    Change the example again so that Chip notices the following message written on the back of the iPod box: \u201cThis iPod is the property of Eugene Schumaker.\u201d Chip is Eugene Schumaker\u2019s friend, so he pays Heather the ten dollars to purchase the iPod so he can return it to Eugene. In many jurisdictions and under the Model Penal Code, Chip can use his intent to return the stolen property to its true owner as a failure of proof<\/strong> or affirmative defense<\/strong> to receiving stolen property.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Retaining Stolen Property<\/h2>\r\n

    If retaining<\/strong> is the criminal act element described in the receiving stolen property statute, a defendant can still be convicted of receiving stolen property if he or she originally receives the property without<\/em> the appropriate criminal intent, but later keeps the property after<\/em> discovering it is stolen (Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions \u00a7\u00a753a-119(8), 2011).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n

    Example of Retaining Stolen Property<\/h2>\r\n

    Review the example with Chip and Heather in Section 11 \"Example of Receiving Stolen Property Intent\"<\/a>. Change this example so that Chip is not a dealer and is offered the iPod for one hundred dollars, which is fairly close to its actual value. Chip purchases the iPod from Heather and thereafter drives home. When he gets home, he begins to open the box and notices the message stating that the iPod is the property of Eugene Schumaker. Chip thinks about it for a minute, continues to open the box, and then retains the iPod for the next six months. If Chip is in a state that defines the criminal act element for receiving stolen property as retains<\/strong>, then Chip most likely committed the criminal act with the appropriate criminal intent (knowledge that the property is stolen) and may be subject to prosecution for and conviction of this offense.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Receiving Stolen Property Attendant Circumstances<\/h2>\r\n

    The property must be stolen<\/em> for this crime, so the prosecution must prove the attendant circumstances<\/strong> that the property belongs to another and lack of victim consent.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Receiving Stolen Property Causation<\/h2>\r\n

    The criminal act must be the factual<\/strong> and legal cause<\/strong> of receiving stolen property harm, which is defined in Section 11 \"Receiving Stolen Property Harm\"<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Receiving Stolen Property Harm<\/h2>\r\n

    The defendant must buy<\/strong>, receive<\/strong>, retain<\/strong>, sell<\/strong>, or dispose of<\/strong> stolen property for the completed crime of receiving stolen property in most jurisdictions (Ala. Code \u00a7 13A-8-16, 2011). If the defendant does not actually gain or transfer control of the property, only attempted<\/em> receiving stolen property can be charged.<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n
    \r\n

    Figure 11.6<\/span> Diagram of Defenses to Receiving Stolen Property<\/p>\r\n\"Diagram<\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Receiving Stolen Property Grading<\/h2>\r\n

    Receiving stolen property is graded<\/strong> as a felony-misdemeanor (Cal. Penal Code \u00a7 496, 2011) or as a misdemeanor if the stolen property is of low value and a felony if the stolen property is of high value (Ga. Code \u00a7 16-8-12, 2011).<\/p>\r\n\r\n

    \r\n
    \r\n

    Figure 11.7<\/span> Diagram of Crimes Involving Theft<\/p>\r\n\"Diagram<\/a>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n

    \r\n

    Key Takeaways<\/h3>\r\n