Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Beavergreen2 sentences2021The court agreed: “While a general verdict of guilt may be established on evidence establishing any one of the consolidated theft offenses [citations], the offense shown by the evidence must be one on which the jury was instructed and thus could have reached its verdict. [Citation.] Thus, in this case, if the elements of theft by trick were not proven, the conviction cannot be affirmed on the ground the evidence showed defendant’s guilt of false pretenses, which has additional required substantive elements, as well as a special corroboration requirement, upon which the jury was not instructed 2021The court agreed: “While a general verdict of guilt may be established on evidence establishing any one of the consolidated theft offenses [citations], the offense shown by the evidence must be one on which the jury was instructed and thus could have reached its verdict. [Citation.] Thus, in this case, if the elements of theft by trick were not proven, the conviction cannot be affirmed on the ground the evidence showed defendant’s guilt of false pretenses, which has additional required substantive elements, as well as a special corroboration requirement, upon which the jury was not instructed | 3 | 5 |
People v. Northgreen2 sentences2014(People v. Curtin, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 531 ; see People v. Beaver, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 123 ; People v. North (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 112, 118 [“The necessity of corroboration distinguishes false pretenses from trick and device . . . .”].) Although theft by trick or device and false pretenses are often applied to the taking of money or intangibles, which are less susceptible of asportation,6 the elements of the two offenses do not limit their application to intangibles. 2013(People v. Curtin, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 531 ; see People v. Beaver, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 123 ; People v. North (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 112, 118 [“The necessity of corroboration distinguishes false pretenses from trick and device . . . .”].) Although theft by trick or device and false pretenses are often applied to the taking of money or intangibles, which are less susceptible of asportation,6 the elements of the two offenses do not limit their application to intangibles. | 3 | 3 |
People v. Countsgreen2 sentences2010(Id. at p. 531.) Reversing, the Curtin court held that “if the elements of theft by trick were not proven, the conviction cannot be affirmed on the ground the evidence showed defendant’s guilt of false pretenses, which has additional required substantive elements, as well as a special corroboration requirement, upon which the jury was not instructed [citation].” (Ibid.) Counts distinguished Curtin , noting that in Curtin “the instruction as to larceny by trick required the presence of evidence which did not exist in the record, and there was insufficient evidence of corroboration to sustain th 2010It is impossible to understand how an error which increased the People’s evidentiary burden could have prejudiced appellant.” (Counts, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 793.) As the court observed, “[i]t would obviously be very hard to explain why a theft conviction should be reversed on the grounds that the evidence showed the defendant was indeed guilty of theft, but would have been guilty of a differently denominated type of theft under a common law system which has been repealed by statute. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences1994(See People v. Smith (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 1103, 1145 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 196 ] (lead opn. of Drummond, J.).) Thus, in this case, if the elements of theft by trick were not proven, the conviction cannot be affirmed on the ground the evidence showed defendant’s guilt of false pretenses, which has additional required substantive elements, as well as a special corroboration requirement, upon which the jury was not instructed (see CALJIC Nos. 14.10, 14.14 (5th ed. 1988 bound vol.)). 1994(See People v. Smith (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 1103, 1145 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 196 ] (lead opn. of Drummond, J.).) Thus, in this case, if the elements of theft by trick were not proven, the conviction cannot be affirmed on the ground the evidence showed defendant’s guilt of false pretenses, which has additional required substantive elements, as well as a special corroboration requirement, upon which the jury was not instructed (see CALJIC Nos. 14.10, 14.14 (5th ed. 1988 bound vol.)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Curtin
green
2 sentences2010The Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, because “[t]here was no evidence the bank teller intended to surrender to defendant only possession and not title to the money.” (Id. at p. 531.) The court explained that “[w]hile a general verdict of guilt may be sustained on evidence establishing any one of the consolidated theft offenses [citations], the offense shown by the evidence must be one on which the jury was instructed and thus could have reached its verdict.” (Curtin, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 531 .) According to the court, “if the elements of theft by trick were not proven, the convi 2010(Id. at p. 531.) Reversing, the Curtin court held that “if the elements of theft by trick were not proven, the conviction cannot be affirmed on the ground the evidence showed defendant’s guilt of false pretenses, which has additional required substantive elements, as well as a special corroboration requirement, upon which the jury was not instructed [citation].” (Ibid.) Counts distinguished Curtin , noting that in Curtin “the instruction as to larceny by trick required the presence of evidence which did not exist in the record, and there was insufficient evidence of corroboration to sustain th | 5 | 2010–2014 |
People v. Traster
green
2 sentences2014(People v. Traster (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1387 .) In addition, a conviction for theft by false pretenses is generally held to have “a special corroboration requirement” not applicable to theft by trick or device. 2013(People v. Traster (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1377, 1387 .) In addition, a conviction for theft by false pretenses is generally held to have “a special corroboration requirement” not applicable to theft by trick or device. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.