California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)

1752. Owning or Operating a Chop Shop

Download PDF
1752.Owning or Operating a Chop Shop (Veh. Code, § 10801)
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with owning or operating a
chop shop [in violation of Vehicle Code section 10801].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant knew that (he/she) (owned/ [or] operated) a chop
shop;
AND
1. The defendant intentionally (owned/ [or] operated) the chop
shop.
Achop shop is a building, lot, or other place where:
1. A person alters, destroys, takes apart, reassembles, or stores a
motor vehicle or motor vehicle part;
2. That person knows that the vehicle or part has been obtained by
theft, fraud, or conspiracy to defraud;
AND
3. That person knows that the vehicle or part was obtained in
order to either:
a. Sell or dispose of the vehicle or part;
a. OR
b. Alter, counterfeit, deface, destroy, disguise, falsify, forge,
obliterate, or remove the identity, including an identification
number, of the vehicle or part, in order to misrepresent its
identity or prevent its identification.
New January 2006
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of
the crime.
AUTHORITY
• Elements. Veh. Code, § 10801.
Chop Shop Defined. Veh. Code, § 250.
• Meaning of “Operate.” People v. Ramirez (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 408,
1131
0023
414–415 [94 Cal.Rptr.2d 76].
Secondary Sources
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against
Property, § 263.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 143,
Crimes Against Property, § 143.03[2][c] (Matthew Bender).
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES
• Receiving Stolen Property. Pen. Code, § 496. There is a split in authority on
this issue. People v. Sanchez (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 325, 333–334 [6
Cal.Rptr.3d 271] concluded that receiving stolen property is a lesser included
offense, but a defendant may be convicted of both offenses when different
property is involved in the two convictions. However, People v. Strohman
(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1313, 1316 [101 Cal.Rptr.2d 520], reached the opposite
conclusion.
1753–1799. Reserved for Future Use
CALCRIM No. 1752 BURGLARY AND RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY
1132
0024