Curtis v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Curtis v. United States

611 A.2d 51, 1992 D.C. App. LEXIS 187, 1992 WL 173331

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 24, 1992

Docket90-CF-784

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 611 A.2d 51 (Curtis v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curtis v. United States, 611 A.2d 51, 1992 D.C. App. LEXIS 187, 1992 WL 173331 (D.C. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

NEWMAN, Senior Judge:

Lewis Curtis was indicted on charges of armed robbery, receiving stolen property, and unauthorized use of a vehicle. A jury found him guilty of the two latter charges. He was sentenced to one term of imprisonment for receiving stolen property, a felony. On appeal, Curtis contends that the [52]*52government failed to produce evidence sufficient to sustain a felony conviction of receiving stolen property. We disagree and affirm.

If the value of the stolen property is $250 or more, the person convicted of receiving stolen property may be sentenced to a prison term not to exceed seven years. D.C.Code § 22-3832(c)(l)(1989). The property in question was a recent vintage Ford Taurus. The complaining witness testified that he borrowed the car from a friend who had rented it from Hertz, a well known car rental company. The car was taken from the complainant on December 29, 1988, and was recovered the next day. The car was fully operable at all times. Photographs of the vehicle taken by a crime scene search officer were entered into evidence.

“Value, as an element of a felony charge of receiving stolen property, must be proved with precision.” Comber v. United States, 398 A.2d 25, 26 (D.C.1979). The government must produce evidence “sufficient to eliminate the possibility that the jury’s verdict is being based on surmise or conjecture.” Boone v. United States, 296 A.2d 449 (D.C.1972).

In Terrell v. United States, 361 A.2d 207 (D.C.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984, 97 S.Ct. 501, 50 L.Ed.2d 594 (1976), the stolen property consisted of household appliances which were at least one or two years old. Though concluding that the government’s evidence was sufficient to sustain only a petit larceny conviction, a misdemeanor, this court noted that there was “a very close question as to whether the property was valued in excess of $100 at the time of the theft.” Id. at 211. This ease differs from Terrell. The question of the Ford Taurus’ value is certainly not a close question. A jury could reasonably find that the fair market value¹ of a nearly new four door sedan, fully operable and in good condition as evidenced by the photographs, exceeded $250 at the time of the offense.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and allowing for all reasonable inferences by the jury, there is sufficient evidence to sustain a felony conviction for receiving stolen property. See Langley v. United States, 515 A.2d 729, 731 (D.C.1986).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NEWMAN, Senior Judge:

Lewis Curtis was indicted on charges of armed robbery, receiving stolen property, and unauthorized use of a vehicle. A jury found him guilty of the two latter charges. He was sentenced to one term of imprisonment for receiving stolen property, a felony. On appeal, Curtis contends that the [52]*52government failed to produce evidence sufficient to sustain a felony conviction of receiving stolen property. We disagree and affirm.

If the value of the stolen property is $250 or more, the person convicted of receiving stolen property may be sentenced to a prison term not to exceed seven years. D.C.Code § 22-3832(c)(l)(1989). The property in question was a recent vintage Ford Taurus. The complaining witness testified that he borrowed the car from a friend who had rented it from Hertz, a well known car rental company. The car was taken from the complainant on December 29, 1988, and was recovered the next day. The car was fully operable at all times. Photographs of the vehicle taken by a crime scene search officer were entered into evidence.

“Value, as an element of a felony charge of receiving stolen property, must be proved with precision.” Comber v. United States, 398 A.2d 25, 26 (D.C.1979). The government must produce evidence “sufficient to eliminate the possibility that the jury’s verdict is being based on surmise or conjecture.” Boone v. United States, 296 A.2d 449 (D.C.1972).

In Terrell v. United States, 361 A.2d 207 (D.C.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 984, 97 S.Ct. 501, 50 L.Ed.2d 594 (1976), the stolen property consisted of household appliances which were at least one or two years old. Though concluding that the government’s evidence was sufficient to sustain only a petit larceny conviction, a misdemeanor, this court noted that there was “a very close question as to whether the property was valued in excess of $100 at the time of the theft.” Id. at 211. This ease differs from Terrell. The question of the Ford Taurus’ value is certainly not a close question. A jury could reasonably find that the fair market value¹ of a nearly new four door sedan, fully operable and in good condition as evidenced by the photographs, exceeded $250 at the time of the offense.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, and allowing for all reasonable inferences by the jury, there is sufficient evidence to sustain a felony conviction for receiving stolen property. See Langley v. United States, 515 A.2d 729, 731 (D.C.1986).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

611 A.2d 51, 1992 D.C. App. LEXIS 187, 1992 WL 173331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-united-states-dc-1992.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack