People v. Kumar CA1/3

Filed 11/21/13 P. v. Kumar CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137395 v. RAJNEEL R. KUMAR, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR279541) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Rajneel R. Kumar appeals a conviction for three felony counts of grand theft. The record shows the jury was improperly instructed on the amount required for grand theft. Therefore, we reverse. I. Background On September 23, 2010, around 5:00 a.m., Kumar was arrested in a residential neighborhood under suspicion of receiving stolen property after Dixon police found him standing next to his automobile with hand tools and catalytic converters on his back seat. He went to trial by jury on charges, inter alia, of grand theft of personal property valued in excess of $400 for removing catalytic converters from three Toyota trucks. (Pen. Code § 487, subd. (a).)1 Dixon police officers testified that they searched Kumar’s automobile and discovered numerous sets of automobile keys, various hand tools, and miscellaneous automobile parts, including multiple catalytic converters. Kumar’s hands were dirty with grease when he was handcuffed and a search of his clothing revealed a socket wrench in

1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise designated.

1

his pocket. Police identified that three of the catalytic converters had been taken from 1994 or 1995 Toyota pickup trucks parked within miles from where he was arrested. The trucks’ owners each testified the catalytic converters had been removed without permission in the hours immediately preceding Kumar’s arrest. Photographs of the used catalytic converters were admitted into evidence. To establish the value of the stolen property, the prosecution called David Woolsey, the assistant manager of a local automobile parts store with 20 years of sales experience, to testify about the function and prices of catalytic converters. The jury was instructed to evaluate Woolsey’s testimony as they would an expert witness. Woolsey described how catalytic converters were made from precious metals and installed on automobiles as an exhaust system component to reduce toxic emissions. He stated it was possible for a used catalytic converter to be taken off one automobile and installed on a different automobile. He provided purchase price ranges for new catalytic converters for 1994 and 1995 Toyota trucks based on a local dealer’s quote and vendors’ sales websites. The range for new units manufactured by Toyota was $885 to $1,102 and the range for new “after market” units manufactured by other part companies was $419 to $690. Woolsey testified he dealt only with new automobile parts and he could not provide a price range for used catalytic converters. If a used catalytic converter was taken off a truck and brought into his store, Woolsey stated that it would have no value to him. But, he clarified, the used catalytic converter would have “value to a scrap yard or somebody who needed one.” After the jury was instructed from a version of CALCRIM No. 1801 that set forth “[t]he defendant committed grand theft if he stole property worth more than $400,” it found Kumar guilty of three counts of grand theft.2 Kumar moved for a new trial, claiming the jury improperly considered the cost of replacing and installing the stolen catalytic converters when it determined the value exceeded $400. The court denied the