Sufficiency of the evidence; Receiving & concealing a stolen motor vehicle; Prosecutorial error; Special investigations unit (SIU)

Holding the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s convictions, and his claims of prosecutorial error lacked merit, the court affirmed. He was convicted of receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle and felony-firearm. He argued that “he was merely present and did not assist [R] in stealing the Challenger. To the contrary, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that defendant aided [R] in stealing the Challenger with knowledge that it was stolen. [R] did not park the Escape at the dealership. Rather, he parked the vehicle in a lot next to the dealership and positioned the vehicle to avoid it being seen on the dealership’s surveillance cameras. Several SIU officers identified defendant as the person driving the Escape after [R] left the dealership driving the Challenger. Defendant closely followed the Challenger to conceal the fact that the Challenger did not have a license plate. In the LA Fitness parking lot, defendant maneuvered the Escape so that it was parked rear-bumper-to-rear-bumper with the Challenger to again conceal the fact that the Challenger did not have a license plate. Defendant appeared to act as a lookout as [R and B] examined the Challenger and [R] removed the dealership sticker. Afterward, defendant drove the Escape and parked it at a residence while [R] parked the Challenger in a garage.” R and B “then walked toward the Escape, and SIU officers immediately apprehended and arrested defendant and [B] while [R] fled. The officers recovered a window-punch tool near the driver’s seat of the Escape as well as a firearm with the word 'Hellcat' written on it. The officers also recovered several blank key fobs from defendant’s person. Accordingly, the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence were sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that defendant was not merely present and aided in the theft and concealment of the Challenger. The prosecution therefore presented sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction of receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle.”