There was sufficient evidence of carjacking where appellant stole a car as the victim was leaning into the back seat to put her child in the car seat. The victim was leaning into the back seat of her car, putting her child into his car seat, when she heard “a revving sound” and saw appellant trying to put the car in gear. The victim took the child out of the car, banged on the window, and yelled as appellant started the car and drove it away. On appeal, appellant challenged the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal based on the sufficiency of evidence for carjacking, alleging he did not use force or fear to take the car. The appellate court rejected the argument, finding the evidence sufficient. The victim testified she feared for her safety and had to back away to make sure appellant did not hit her with the car as he drove away. Appellant did not need to directly threaten the victim in order to accomplish the carjacking through fear.
Appellant could not be convicted of carjacking and receipt of stolen property for the same vehicle. Appellant also contended he could not be convicted of both carjacking and receiving stolen property. The appellate court agreed and reversed the receiving stolen property count. Under Penal Code section 496, subdivision (a), a defendant cannot be convicted of both carjacking and receipt of stolen property when the property in question is the vehicle taken in the carjacking.