Carjacking

Carjacking, defined as the forcible or violently coerced theft of a motor vehicle from its driver or occupants, is deemed a grave offense. It occurs predominantly when an individual is forcibly dispossessed of their car in its vicinity or within. The gravity of carjacking stems from its use of theft and violence, thereby imposing considerable hazards on the victims involved. That is why law enforcement agencies prioritize preventing, investigating, and prosecuting carjacking occurrences to safeguard the public's welfare and uphold societal harmony.

In California, carjacking is addressed under PC 215. The law outlines various penalties that an individual could face upon conviction for this crime. The California Criminal Lawyer Group will help you decide on a defense strategy that will result in the best outcome. Our Bakersfield team breaks down the pertinent issues regarding carjacking, detailing the definition of the crime, the likely penalties, and the defenses you can assert. 

Carjacking as Defined Under California Law

The prosecution must present specific elements outlined in California Criminal Jury Instruction 1650 to establish the crime of carjacking under PC 215. Prosecutors must prove the following:

• You took the motor vehicle.
• You took the car in the immediate presence of someone who possessed the vehicle or was a passenger.
• The vehicle was taken against that person's will.
• You employed fear or force to seize the vehicle or prevent the carjacking victim from resisting.
• When using fear or force, you intend to temporarily or permanently deprive the other person of their rightful vehicle possession.

Let us look at the law's phrases to better understand the crime. 

1. Possession and Immediate Presence

For carjacking to occur, the victim must possess or control the vehicle during the incident. This means the victim must have a lawful right to the car, whether as its owner or having authorized possession.

Additionally, carjacking necessitates that the act occurs in the victim's immediate presence. Immediate presence encompasses scenarios where the victim is close to the vehicle during the incident. This includes instances where the victim is either inside the car or nearby, for example, standing close to the vehicle or being present outside it.

By establishing possession and immediate presence, the prosecution effectively demonstrates the direct association between the victim and the vehicle. It illustrates that the victim had a direct connection to the car and was situated nearby when it was forcefully taken against their will through the use of force or instilling fear. 

Note: Carjacking extends beyond situations involving firearms or other weapons and encompasses a broader range of circumstances.

2. Taking the Vehicle Against the Victim’s Will 

Carjacking involves the unlawful act of taking the vehicle against the victim's will. In other words, you controlled or appropriated the car without obtaining the victim's consent or permission. The victim's lack of willingness to relinquish the vehicle is crucial in establishing the carjacking offense. It demonstrates that you took possession of the car without their agreement, disregarding their rights and preferences.

Consent refers to a person willingly and voluntarily granting permission or agreement for an act to occur. It signifies that the individual comprehends the nature of the act and provides consent without being subjected to force, coercion, or deceit. Consent can be explicitly expressed through words or actions or inferred from the circumstances and context. 

Note: If you moved the car only a short distance, you could still face charges for carjacking. The legality of the offense is not contingent on the distance traveled. The central factor in carjacking is forcefully seizing the vehicle from the victim's possession or immediate presence against their will, regardless of the distance covered.

3. Use of Force or Fear 

In California, under Penal Code 215 PC, the phrases "force" and "fear" have been judicially interpreted to carry similar meanings. Courts have recognized that the coercive impact of fear caused by threats can be viewed as a type of force. As a result, fear, in a carjacking scenario, involves the apprehension of harm to one's person, family, property, or other individuals and property present during the incident.

Instilling enough fear in the victim, and compelling them to comply with the illegal demand for their property, is sufficient to establish your guilt. Therefore, the element is deemed satisfied if you use adequate force or fear to overcome the victim's resistance. The victim's attempts to resist do not invalidate or negate the assertion that fear or force was employed. 

Furthermore, the victim doesn't need to be conscious of the force or fear used to seize control of their vehicle.

For example, suppose an infant or unconscious person is inside the vehicle, and fear or force is used to seize control of the car. In that case, the perpetrator can still be convicted of carjacking.

In carjacking cases, the emphasis is placed on the actions and intentions of the perpetrator rather than the victim's understanding or response. 

4. Intent to Deprive

The intent to deprive is an essential element in establishing a carjacking offense. It relates to the perpetrator's desire to permanently or temporarily strip the victim of their rightful vehicle possession.

During carjacking, you must possess the specific intent to deprive the victim of their car. This intention must be present before or when force or fear is employed to seize control of the vehicle. Without the intent to deprive, the act does not fulfill the criteria for a carjacking offense.

Regardless of whether the perpetrator intends to retain the vehicle permanently or for a temporary duration, the critical aspect is their determination to exercise control over the car against the victim's will. The intent to deprive highlights the illicit nature of the act, as it involves wrongfully appropriating something that rightfully belongs to another individual without their consent.

Additionally, the specific purpose or motive behind taking someone's car is irrelevant in a carjacking case. Whether you intend to use the vehicle for personal use, sell it, or borrow it for a brief period, any unauthorized taking of the car against the victim's will fulfills the definition of carjacking. 

Fighting Carjacking Charges

You can assert several defenses to challenge the carjacking charges against you. Some of the common defenses include the following:

1. Lack of Force or Fear 

You can raise the defense of lack of fear or force. Carjacking is predicated on using force or fear to seize control of a vehicle. If you can substantiate that fear or force was absent from the incident, it could undermine the prosecution's case.

To assert this defense, you should present evidence or construct arguments demonstrating the nonexistence of fear or force in the given circumstances. This defense involves the following aspects: 

• Absence of physical force — By establishing that you did not use physical dominance or perpetrate an assault upon the victim to gain control over the vehicle, you can cast doubt on the prosecution's claim of force.

• Nonexistence of fear-inducing actions — By demonstrating that you refrained from engaging in acts or conduct that would reasonably instill fear in the victim, for example, brandishing a weapon, making menacing gestures, or employing harsh language, you can undermine the allegation of fear.

• Consent — By substantiating that the owner or possessor of the vehicle permitted you to take it willingly and voluntarily without employing fear or force, you can present a robust defense against the carjacking accusation. 

2. You Did Not Take the Vehicle From the Victim’s Immediate Presence 

In a carjacking case, you can argue that you did not take the vehicle in the immediate presence of its possessor. By challenging the prosecution's account of the events and asserting that the car was not in the immediate control or proximity of the owner, you can undermine their case.

To support this defense, you must present evidence that convincingly demonstrates the absence of immediate presence. This can be achieved through various means: 

• Establishing physical distance — Demonstrating that a significant distance existed between the owner or possessor of the vehicle and the location where the alleged carjacking occurred can weaken the prosecution's claim of immediate presence.

• Showing a temporal gap — Presenting evidence of a substantial time lapse between the owner's or possessor's last interaction with the vehicle and the alleged carjacking can cast doubt on the immediacy of the offense. 

• Highlighting intervening obstacles — Providing evidence of physical barriers or obstacles that hindered direct access to the vehicle can refute the prosecution's assertion that it was taken from immediate proximity.

• Utilizing eyewitness testimony or surveillance footage — If available, eyewitness accounts or surveillance footage that contradicts the prosecution's narrative of the carjacking, demonstrating that the vehicle was not taken from the immediate presence of its possessor, can significantly strengthen your defense.

You challenge a fundamental element of the carjacking offense by asserting that you did not take the vehicle out of the immediate presence of the person who possessed it. 

3. You Were Mistakenly Identified as the Perpetrator

Providing evidence that disproves your involvement as the perpetrator is crucial to mount a defense based on mistaken identity in a carjacking case. This defense strategy aims to demonstrate that you have been wrongly identified and that there has been an error in attributing the crime to you.

To support your claim of mistaken identity, you can employ various evidentiary measures, such as: 

• Establishing an alibi — Presenting compelling evidence, including witnesses or documentation, that verifies your presence elsewhere during the carjacking incident can strongly counter the prosecution's accusation and cast doubt on your involvement.

• Challenging witness credibility — Examining the testimonies of the witnesses who identified you as the culprit for inconsistencies, contradictions, or potential biases can undermine their reliability. Inconsistencies in their statements can raise doubts about the accuracy of their identification.

• Introducing surveillance footage or corroborating evidence — If available, presenting surveillance footage or other relevant evidence that shows your absence from the scene or supports an alternative narrative can effectively refute the allegation of your participation in the carjacking.

A Claim of Right is Not a Defense

In carjacking cases, the defendant's belief in a claim of right to the vehicle does not absolve them of the criminal charges. Carjacking is a distinct offense that centers on the act of forcefully taking possession of a vehicle from another individual. It is not contingent on the defendant's subjective beliefs regarding ownership or possessory rights. 

Therefore, asserting a claim of right defense in a carjacking case is unlikely to be successful as it does not negate the essential elements of force, violence, or intimidation required to establish the offense. 

Penalties You Will Face if Convicted of Carjacking

Carjacking is a felony punishable by:

• Formal or felony probation with a jail sentence of up to one year.
• 3, 5, or 9 years in prison.
• Up to $10,000 in fines.

Note: You would face the above sentences if you carjacked a single victim.

You will face enhanced penalties under certain circumstances, namely: 

1. If the Victim Suffers Great Bodily Injury

If, during the carjacking in California, you cause another individual to sustain a significant physical injury known as great bodily injury, PC 12022.7 comes into play. This provision, commonly called California's great bodily injury sentence enhancement, imposes an additional prison sentence of 3 to 6 years. This sentence is served consecutively and in addition to the sentence you receive for your carjacking conviction.

2. Criminal Street Gang Enhancement 

California PC 186.22 introduces gang enhancement, which can be applicable in certain carjacking cases involving the participation or association with a criminal street gang. This enhancement imposes additional penalties and consequences for individuals who commit crimes, like carjacking, in furtherance of, or association with, a criminal street gang.

If prosecutors prove you carjacked another with the specific intent to promote, further the interests of, or actively participate in a criminal street gang, gang enhancement applies. This enhancement enhances the penalties for the carjacking offense and can lead to more severe consequences. 

Carjacking in furtherance of gang activity results in an additional 15 years to life in prison.

3. Use of a Gun in a Carjacking Incident 

The "10-20-life 'use a firearm and you're done'" law, California Penal Code 12022.53 PC, imposes enhanced penalties for crimes involving firearm use.

When you use a firearm during a carjacking, the specific penalties vary depending on the circumstances of the case. 

• The "10-20-life" mandatory minimum sentences are imposed when a firearm is utilized.
• If the firearm is discharged during the carjacking, the minimum sentence is 15 years to life imprisonment.
• If the firearm is used but not discharged, the minimum sentence is 10 years in prison.
• If you personally cause great bodily injury or death to someone during the carjacking, you will face an additional 25 years to life imprisonment or life without parole.

Importantly, these penalties are mandatory and must be served consecutively to any other sentences for the current offense.

4. A Strike Per the Three Strikes Law

Carjacking is classified as a "violent felony" according to the law. Consequently, if you are found guilty of a PC 215 violation, you will have a "strike" added to your criminal record, in line with California's three strikes law. This means that, along with the previously mentioned penalties, like the enhanced sentences under relevant statutes, you will also bear the weight of a strike on your record.

The presence of a strike on your criminal record can have significant ramifications. If the prosecutors subsequently charge you with any felony and you already have a prior strike, you will be treated as a "second striker." In this case, your punishment will be twice the length that would otherwise be mandated by law. This intensifies the severity of the penalties you could face for future offenses. 

Furthermore, should you face a third felony charge while already having two prior strike convictions, you will be considered a "third striker." As a third striker, you will face a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty five years to life in prison.

5. Penalties for Murder 

California's felony-murder rule imposes responsibility for the murder in the first degree if someone is accidentally or unintentionally killed during the commission of a carjacking. This holds even if the victim's death was not the intended consequence of the carjacking as long as there is a logical connection between the crime and the death.

Under this rule, individuals can be held accountable for deaths during felonies like carjacking. The law acknowledges that certain inherently dangerous felonies could lead to unintentional fatalities. Consequently, even if a victim suffers a heart attack due to the stress or trauma of the carjacking, you can still face and be convicted of first-degree murder.

The determining factor is the logical relationship between the carjacking and the victim's death rather than a direct intent to cause harm. 

Federal Law on Carjacking

18 U.S.C. § 2119 addresses carjacking at the federal level. Carjacking, as defined by this law, involves the intentional seizure of a motor vehicle from another person through:

• Force.
• Violence, or
• Intimidation, accompanied by the intent to inflict serious bodily harm or cause death.

The penalties for federal carjacking offenses vary depending on the harm inflicted. 

In cases without serious bodily injury, the maximum punishment is 15 years of imprisonment. However, the maximum penalty is 25 years of imprisonment if the carjacking results in serious bodily injury. In the most severe cases involving the death of a victim, the maximum punishment can extend to life imprisonment or even the death penalty.

By targeting carjacking incidents that involve interstate activities or occur on federal property, federal carjacking laws aim to address the unique challenges posed by these offenses. Federal charges are possible since many vehicles are transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I be Deported if Convicted of Carjacking?

Carjacking is an "aggravated felony" per immigration law. Aggravated felonies carry significant weight as they have the potential to lead to the deportation or removal of individuals who are legal immigrants or aliens.

Can I Face Carjacking Charges If I Only Took Another Person’s Car Keys and Not the Car? 

Forcefully seizing another person's car keys to deprive them of immediate possession and control over their vehicle could result in carjacking charges, even if you did not physically take the car. Remember, carjacking laws require force, violence, or intimidation to gain control of a motor vehicle from another individual unlawfully.

Forcefully taking the car keys can be viewed as a form of intimidation or forceful action that ultimately aims to achieve the same outcome as physically taking the vehicle. 

Does the Victim's Presence in the Car Matter in Carjacking Cases?

The victim's presence in the car is a significant factor in determining carjacking charges. Under PC 215, the element of immediate presence emphasizes that the victim is physically present and at risk during the commission of the offense.

If the victim is in the car during the carjacking, it strengthens the case for carjacking charges as it aligns with the essential elements of the offense. The presence of the victim demonstrates the use of force, violence, or intimidation to take control of the vehicle and increases the level of danger and potential harm involved.

However, If the owner or possessor left the vehicle voluntarily, the offense could be categorized as theft, robbery, or another crime that aligns more closely with the specific actions and circumstances involved. 

Contact an Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Near Me

Contact an experienced criminal defense attorney who will help ensure you get the best possible outcome for your carjacking case. He/she can also address any concerns related to carjacking charges. The attorney will help you navigate the complex legal landscape. They can offer expert guidance tailored to your unique situation and provide the necessary representation.

Feel free to contact the California Criminal Lawyer Group if you or a loved one is facing carjacking charges in Bakersfield. You get access to our combined years of experience handling carjacking crimes. We will extensively investigate your case to establish the facts, formulate a winning strategy, and involve experts. All our efforts aim at protecting your rights. Contact us today at 661-750-8230 for more information.