The reporting party in this case saw a female driving a silver Honda Prelude through her neighborhood. After the car went around a corner, a man who was never identified walked up to the RP's car and tried to break into it. The RP and her son yelled at him, and the suspect walked away. Then the Prelude drove by again, and the police were called. The RP found that her car door (which she had locked) was now open.
Police found a silver Honda Prelude nearby. Rhodus (the female driver) was the only occupant of the car. When the police approached her, she drove away and led them on a high speed chase. During the chase, she drove through yards, drove on the wrong side of the street, slammed on her brakes, and generally drove recklessly. She lost the officers for a moment, but then they found the car. It was parked, unoccupied, and running with no key (turns out it was stolen). Rhodus was found nearby and detained. The officer who had originally tried to contact her recognized her as the driver of the Prelude, and she was arrested.
Rhodus was charged with First Degree Criminal Trespass for the RP's car (under a complicity theory that she had aided the unidentified male in committing that crime), Theft by Receiveing for the car she was driving, and Vehicular Eluding. She was convicted as charged. Rhodus appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the charges.
The Court held that as far as First Degree Criminal Trespass goes, she was right. Although the door to the RP's car was opened, there was never any evidence presented that the unidentified male actually entered the car. The Court held that as with burglary, "entry" is defined by the unlawful intrusion of any part of the body (or any instrument attached to the body) into the space within the car. Just opening the door doesn't meet this standard, so the trespass conviction was reversed.
The other two convictions were affirmed. Rhodus argued that the Prelude she was driving was never identified in court as the one which was stolen. Oddly, the prosecution never presented any evidence of VIN numbers or other vehicle identification, but the facts they did present were enough (including the timing of the theft of the Prelude and Rhodus' apprehension; and also Rhodus' conduct in driving without a key, fleeing from officers, attempting to conceal the Prelude, and abandoning it. Rhodus' conduct was held to be sufficient to demonstrate that she knew the car was stolen and intended to permanently deprive the rightful owner of it). She also argued that her driving wasn't risky enough to meet the elements of eluding because there was no other traffic or pedestrians, but the court didn't buy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment