Bailey doctrine in California

2021(See, e.g., People v. Neder (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 846, 852 (Neder) [holding that the Bailey doctrine, which was “developed for the crime of theft,” should not be “extended to forgery”]; In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 309 [recognizing that application of the Bailey doctrine “has been limited ... to the crime of theft”]; People v. Drake (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 592, 597, 595 [declining “to extend the Bailey doctrine beyond theft offenses,” and holding that the defendant was properly convicted of five separate counts of MediCal fraud based on five acts of false billing]; People v. Washingt

2021(See, e.g., People v. Neder (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 846, 852 (Neder) [holding that the Bailey doctrine, which was “developed for the crime of theft,” should not be “extended to forgery”]; In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 309 [recognizing that application of the Bailey doctrine “has been limited ... to the crime of theft”]; People v. Drake (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 592, 597, 595 [declining “to extend the Bailey doctrine beyond theft offenses,” and holding that the defendant was properly convicted of five separate counts of MediCal fraud based on five acts of false billing]; People v. Washingt

2026(Kirvin, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 1518 .) About four decades later, the Supreme Court revisited the Bailey doctrine in People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733 (Whitmer).

2026(Kirvin, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 1518 .) About four decades later, the Supreme Court revisited the Bailey doctrine in People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733 (Whitmer).

2021(See, e.g., People v. Neder (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 846, 852 (Neder) [holding that the Bailey doctrine, which was “developed for the crime of theft,” should not be “extended to forgery”]; In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 309 [recognizing that application of the Bailey doctrine “has been limited ... to the crime of theft”]; People v. Drake (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 592, 597, 595 [declining “to extend the Bailey doctrine beyond theft offenses,” and holding that the defendant was properly convicted of five separate counts of MediCal fraud based on five acts of false billing]; People v. Washingt

2021(See, e.g., People v. Neder (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 846, 852 (Neder) [holding that the Bailey doctrine, which was “developed for the crime of theft,” should not be “extended to forgery”]; In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 309 [recognizing that application of the Bailey doctrine “has been limited ... to the crime of theft”]; People v. Drake (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 592, 597, 595 [declining “to extend the Bailey doctrine beyond theft offenses,” and holding that the defendant was properly convicted of five separate counts of MediCal fraud based on five acts of false billing]; People v. Washingt

2022(Compare, e.g., People v. Tabb 57 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [Bailey has generally been limited to thefts involving a single victim] and In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 (David D.) [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”] with People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24, 31 [applying Bailey to multiple thefts from a single fund to which multiple victims had contributed], disapproved on another point in Whitmer, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 739-740; People v. Columbia Research Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d Supp. 33, 41 [

2022(Compare, e.g., People v. Tabb 57 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [Bailey has generally been limited to thefts involving a single victim] and In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 (David D.) [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”] with People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24, 31 [applying Bailey to multiple thefts from a single fund to which multiple victims had contributed], disapproved on another point in Whitmer, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 739-740; People v. Columbia Research Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d Supp. 33, 41 [

2022(Compare, e.g., People v. Tabb 57 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [Bailey has generally been limited to thefts involving a single victim] and In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 (David D.) [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”] with People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24, 31 [applying Bailey to multiple thefts from a single fund to which multiple victims had contributed], disapproved on another point in Whitmer, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 739-740; People v. Columbia Research Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d Supp. 33, 41 [

2022(Compare, e.g., People v. Tabb 57 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [Bailey has generally been limited to thefts involving a single victim] and In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 (David D.) [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”] with People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24, 31 [applying Bailey to multiple thefts from a single fund to which multiple victims had contributed], disapproved on another point in Whitmer, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 739-740; People v. Columbia Research Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d Supp. 33, 41 [

2021(See, e.g., People v. Neder (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 846, 852 (Neder) [holding that the Bailey doctrine, which was “developed for the crime of theft,” should not be “extended to forgery”]; In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 309 [recognizing that application of the Bailey doctrine “has been limited ... to the crime of theft”]; People v. Drake (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 592, 597, 595 [declining “to extend the Bailey doctrine beyond theft offenses,” and holding that the defendant was properly convicted of five separate counts of MediCal fraud based on five acts of false billing]; People v. Washingt

2021(See, e.g., People v. Neder (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 846, 852 (Neder) [holding that the Bailey doctrine, which was “developed for the crime of theft,” should not be “extended to forgery”]; In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 309 [recognizing that application of the Bailey doctrine “has been limited ... to the crime of theft”]; People v. Drake (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 592, 597, 595 [declining “to extend the Bailey doctrine beyond theft offenses,” and holding that the defendant was properly convicted of five separate counts of MediCal fraud based on five acts of false billing]; People v. Washingt

2020(See, e.g., People v. Tabb (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [stating Bailey generally limited to thefts involving single victim]; In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”]; People v. Garcia (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 297, 308 [Bailey did not apply where multiple victims].) Other appellate courts have applied Bailey to multiple victims.

2020(See, e.g., People v. Tabb (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [stating Bailey generally limited to thefts involving single victim]; In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”]; People v. Garcia (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 297, 308 [Bailey did not apply where multiple victims].) Other appellate courts have applied Bailey to multiple victims.

2021(See, e.g., People v. Jaska (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 971, 981 (Jaska); People v. Tabb (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142 , 1148–1149 (Tabb).) To determine whether the converse Bailey doctrine applied, appellate courts examined the nature of the underlying crimes.

2016We apply the Bailey rule “as a matter of law only in the absence of any evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred that the defendant acted pursuant to more than one intention, one general impulse, or *832 one plan. [Citation.]” (People v. Jaska (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 971, 984 [ 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 760 ], fn. omitted.) We are not persuaded it applies as a matter of law to these facts.

2020(People v. Carrasco (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 715, 717, 720 [where defendant commits multiple acts of vandalism pursuant to single plan, fact damaged property owned by more than one victim does not preclude aggregation]; In re Arthur V. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 61 , 68-69, fn. 4) [in vandalism case, existence of multiple victims does not preclude aggregation under Bailey]; People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24, 31 ) [applying Bailey to multiple thefts from single fund to which 3 multiple victims contributed].) In Whitmer, the court said “[t]he Bailey rule must be interpreted in light of its fac

2016(Kirvin, at pp. 1517–1518; People v. Tabb (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 (Tabb) [multiple acts of theft consolidated to a single felony offense]; People v. Carrasco (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 715, 717 [multiple acts of vandalism against different property owners consolidated to a single felony offense].) “Until recently, the converse Bailey doctrine applied with full force to this category of offenses, and entitled a defendant to dismissal of all but one conviction for multiple crimes, even if each involved a complete criminal act, as long as the crimes were committed ‘pursuant to a single gene

2022(Compare, e.g., People v. Tabb 57 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [Bailey has generally been limited to thefts involving a single victim] and In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 (David D.) [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”] with People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24, 31 [applying Bailey to multiple thefts from a single fund to which multiple victims had contributed], disapproved on another point in Whitmer, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 739-740; People v. Columbia Research Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d Supp. 33, 41 [

2022(Compare, e.g., People v. Tabb 57 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [Bailey has generally been limited to thefts involving a single victim] and In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 (David D.) [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”] with People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24, 31 [applying Bailey to multiple thefts from a single fund to which multiple victims had contributed], disapproved on another point in Whitmer, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 739-740; People v. Columbia Research Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d Supp. 33, 41 [

2022Further, a chief benefit of the converse Bailey doctrine – making sure defendants who engage in conduct that technically constitutes two crimes but practically constitutes one (such as two immediately successive entries into the same home being treated as separate burglaries) – can be just as effectively achieved by the already existing rule prohibiting double 33. punishment, and without all of the attendant disadvantages of prohibiting multiple convictions.” (People v. Kirvin, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 1519 .)20 In Johnson, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th 1467 , the court held the defendant may be

2022Further, a chief benefit of the converse Bailey doctrine – making sure defendants who engage in conduct that technically constitutes two crimes but practically constitutes one (such as two immediately successive entries into the same home being treated as separate burglaries) – can be just as effectively achieved by the already existing rule prohibiting double 33. punishment, and without all of the attendant disadvantages of prohibiting multiple convictions.” (People v. Kirvin, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 1519 .)20 In Johnson, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th 1467 , the court held the defendant may be

2024Based on the cases cited in the B.H.D. opinion for this point (see B.H.D., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1142 , citing People v. Stanford (1940) 16 Cal.2d 247, 251 (Stanford) and People v. Slocum (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 867, 889 (Slocum)), the passage Apex relies upon appears to reference what is known in the law of theft as the “Bailey rule.” (See People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514 (Bailey).) Under the Bailey rule as it stood when B.H.D. was decided in 1992, a defendant could be convicted on separate counts of petty theft carried out “by distinct appropriations of different sums 23 of money on

2024Based on the cases cited in the B.H.D. opinion for this point (see B.H.D., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1142 , citing People v. Stanford (1940) 16 Cal.2d 247, 251 (Stanford) and People v. Slocum (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 867, 889 (Slocum)), the passage Apex relies upon appears to reference what is known in the law of theft as the “Bailey rule.” (See People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514 (Bailey).) Under the Bailey rule as it stood when B.H.D. was decided in 1992, a defendant could be convicted on separate counts of petty theft carried out “by distinct appropriations of different sums 23 of money on

2013(People v. Richardson (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 853, 866 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 682, fn. 8 ; People v. Packard (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 622, 626 ; People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 314, 363-364 .) For the next 47 years, the Bailey rule was limited to theft cases.

2013(People v. Richardson (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 853, 866 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 682, fn. 8 ; People v. Packard (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 622, 626 ; People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 314, 363-364 .) For the next 47 years, the Bailey rule was limited to theft cases.

2024(See People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 13-14 [applying Bailey rule, not Whitmer rule, because Whitmer does not apply to crimes committed during the time the Bailey doctrine remained valid].) 31 have reasonably inferred that the defendant acted pursuant to more than one intention, one general impulse, or one plan.” (Id. at p. 984.) In other words, if in the case before us there is any evidence from which the jury could have inferred more than one intention, general impulse, or plan, the doctrine does not apply. 2.

2024(See People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 13-14 [applying Bailey rule, not Whitmer rule, because Whitmer does not apply to crimes committed during the time the Bailey doctrine remained valid].) 31 have reasonably inferred that the defendant acted pursuant to more than one intention, one general impulse, or one plan.” (Id. at p. 984.) In other words, if in the case before us there is any evidence from which the jury could have inferred more than one intention, general impulse, or plan, the doctrine does not apply. 2.

2024As to his convictions, Chapman argues: (1) the statute of limitations barred his prosecution as a matter of law; (2) the jury was improperly instructed on the statute of limitations and evidence of an uncharged conspiracy; (3) his 63 grand theft convictions must be consolidated into one conviction under the doctrine articulated in People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514 (Bailey); (4) the trial court failed to instruct on the Bailey doctrine; (5) the trial court failed to hold a second evidentiary hearing on allegations of juror misconduct; and (6) Chapman received ineffective assistance of couns

2024As to his convictions, Chapman argues: (1) the statute of limitations barred his prosecution as a matter of law; (2) the jury was improperly instructed on the statute of limitations and evidence of an uncharged conspiracy; (3) his 63 grand theft convictions must be consolidated into one conviction under the doctrine articulated in People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514 (Bailey); (4) the trial court failed to instruct on the Bailey doctrine; (5) the trial court failed to hold a second evidentiary hearing on allegations of juror misconduct; and (6) Chapman received ineffective assistance of couns

2021(Whitmer, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 741 , emphasis added.) The court, however, declined to apply the rule to the defendant in that case retroactively because of “the long, uninterrupted series of Court of Appeal cases, beginning with People v. Sullivan, supra, 80 Cal.App.3d 16 , decided in 1978, and including People v. Kronemeyer, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d 314 , decided in 1987, that have consistently held that multiple acts of grand theft pursuant to a single scheme cannot support more than one count of grand theft.” (Id. at p. 742.) B Although William concedes Whitmer effectively narrowed the Bail

2021Until recently, the converse Bailey doctrine entitled a defendant to a dismissal of all but one conviction for multiple theft crimes, even if each involved a complete criminal act, as long as the crimes were committed “pursuant to a single general impulse, intention or plan. [Citation.]” (Tabb, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p. 1150 ; see People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24 , 30–32 [theft]; People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 314 , 363–364 (Kronemyer) [same].) In contrast, courts declined to apply the converse Bailey doctrine to crimes that did not monetize and aggregate harm or damage

2016(Cf. People v. Tabb (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1150-1151 [only one theft offense under Bailey doctrine where no evidence thefts were committed pursuant to different schemes or plans]; People v. Packard (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 622, 626-627 ; People v. Richardson (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 853 .) McClinton's convictions on counts 13, 16, and 18 must be reversed.

2013(People v. Richardson (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 853, 866 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 682, fn. 8 ; People v. Packard (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 622, 626 ; People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 314, 363-364 .) For the next 47 years, the Bailey rule was limited to theft cases.

2016(Cf. People v. Tabb (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1150-1151 [only one theft offense under Bailey doctrine where no evidence thefts were committed pursuant to different schemes or plans]; People v. Packard (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 622, 626-627 ; People v. Richardson (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 853 .) McClinton's convictions on counts 13, 16, and 18 must be reversed.

2013(People v. Richardson (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 853, 866 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Saddler (1979) 24 Cal.3d 671, 682, fn. 8 ; People v. Packard (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 622, 626 ; People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 314, 363-364 .) For the next 47 years, the Bailey rule was limited to theft cases.

2016Other courts have declined to apply the Bailey doctrine to aggregate multiple forgery charges into a single forgery offense (People v. Neder (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 846 ), or to aggregate multiple charges of the use of personal identifying information into a single violation of section 530.5 (People v. Mitchell (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 442, 456-457 ), reasoning that these offenses, unlike theft and vandalism, "do not monetize and aggregate harm or damage." (People v. Kirvin (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1518 .) If Chamberlain could have been properly convicted of numerous counts of these offenses wi

2016Other courts have declined to apply the Bailey doctrine to aggregate multiple forgery charges into a single forgery offense (People v. Neder (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 846 ), or to aggregate multiple charges of the use of personal identifying information into a single violation of section 530.5 (People v. Mitchell (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 442, 456-457 ), reasoning that these offenses, unlike theft and vandalism, "do not monetize and aggregate harm or damage." (People v. Kirvin (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1507, 1518 .) If Chamberlain could have been properly convicted of numerous counts of these offenses wi

2016Additionally, the urns were purchased separately and were the property of separate victims, a fact that was apparent given the separate niches and the metal identification plaques on the urns. 12 Thus, the thefts constituted “crimes against [nine] separate interests and therefore represented [nine] separate offenses.” 13 (Church, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 1159 .) Accordingly, we reject defendant’s argument that the Bailey rule applies as a matter of law and requires reversal of all but one of his grand theft convictions. *835 Judgment is affirmed as to nine counts of grand theft.

2016Additionally, the urns were purchased separately and were the property of separate victims, a fact that was apparent given the separate niches and the metal identification plaques on the urns. 12 Thus, the thefts constituted “crimes against [nine] separate interests and therefore represented [nine] separate offenses.” 13 (Church, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d at p. 1159 .) Accordingly, we reject defendant’s argument that the Bailey rule applies as a matter of law and requires reversal of all but one of his grand theft convictions. *835 Judgment is affirmed as to nine counts of grand theft.

2021(See, e.g., People v. Neder (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 846, 852 (Neder) [holding that the Bailey doctrine, which was “developed for the crime of theft,” should not be “extended to forgery”]; In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 309 [recognizing that application of the Bailey doctrine “has been limited ... to the crime of theft”]; People v. Drake (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 592, 597, 595 [declining “to extend the Bailey doctrine beyond theft offenses,” and holding that the defendant was properly convicted of five separate counts of MediCal fraud based on five acts of false billing]; People v. Washingt

2021(See, e.g., People v. Neder (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 846, 852 (Neder) [holding that the Bailey doctrine, which was “developed for the crime of theft,” should not be “extended to forgery”]; In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 309 [recognizing that application of the Bailey doctrine “has been limited ... to the crime of theft”]; People v. Drake (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 592, 597, 595 [declining “to extend the Bailey doctrine beyond theft offenses,” and holding that the defendant was properly convicted of five separate counts of MediCal fraud based on five acts of false billing]; People v. Washingt

2016(People v. Church (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1151, 1158-1159 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 49 ] (Church), disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bouzas (1991) 53 Cal.3d 467, 477-480 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 847 , 807 P.2d 1076 ].) In Church , the court found the evidence supported the prosecution’s theory that “the entries into and thefts from the four separately leased and locked offices amounted to crimes against four separate interests and therefore represented separate offenses.” (Church, supra, at p. 1159 .) The court reasoned that “[f]our separate businesses were forcibly entered and ransacked” and “[a]lthough t

2016(People v. Church (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1151, 1158-1159 [ 264 Cal.Rptr. 49 ] (Church), disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bouzas (1991) 53 Cal.3d 467, 477-480 [ 279 Cal.Rptr. 847 , 807 P.2d 1076 ].) In Church , the court found the evidence supported the prosecution’s theory that “the entries into and thefts from the four separately leased and locked offices amounted to crimes against four separate interests and therefore represented separate offenses.” (Church, supra, at p. 1159 .) The court reasoned that “[f]our separate businesses were forcibly entered and ransacked” and “[a]lthough t

2024Based on the cases cited in the B.H.D. opinion for this point (see B.H.D., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1142 , citing People v. Stanford (1940) 16 Cal.2d 247, 251 (Stanford) and People v. Slocum (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 867, 889 (Slocum)), the passage Apex relies upon appears to reference what is known in the law of theft as the “Bailey rule.” (See People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514 (Bailey).) Under the Bailey rule as it stood when B.H.D. was decided in 1992, a defendant could be convicted on separate counts of petty theft carried out “by distinct appropriations of different sums 23 of money on

2024Based on the cases cited in the B.H.D. opinion for this point (see B.H.D., supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1142 , citing People v. Stanford (1940) 16 Cal.2d 247, 251 (Stanford) and People v. Slocum (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 867, 889 (Slocum)), the passage Apex relies upon appears to reference what is known in the law of theft as the “Bailey rule.” (See People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514 (Bailey).) Under the Bailey rule as it stood when B.H.D. was decided in 1992, a defendant could be convicted on separate counts of petty theft carried out “by distinct appropriations of different sums 23 of money on

2022(Compare, e.g., People v. Tabb 57 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [Bailey has generally been limited to thefts involving a single victim] and In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 (David D.) [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”] with People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24, 31 [applying Bailey to multiple thefts from a single fund to which multiple victims had contributed], disapproved on another point in Whitmer, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 739-740; People v. Columbia Research Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d Supp. 33, 41 [

2022(Compare, e.g., People v. Tabb 57 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [Bailey has generally been limited to thefts involving a single victim] and In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 (David D.) [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”] with People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24, 31 [applying Bailey to multiple thefts from a single fund to which multiple victims had contributed], disapproved on another point in Whitmer, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 739-740; People v. Columbia Research Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d Supp. 33, 41 [

2026(Kirvin, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 1518 .) About four decades later, the Supreme Court revisited the Bailey doctrine in People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733 (Whitmer).

2026(Kirvin, supra, 231 Cal.App.4th at p. 1518 .) About four decades later, the Supreme Court revisited the Bailey doctrine in People v. Whitmer (2014) 59 Cal.4th 733 (Whitmer).

2022(Compare, e.g., People v. Tabb 57 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [Bailey has generally been limited to thefts involving a single victim] and In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 (David D.) [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”] with People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24, 31 [applying Bailey to multiple thefts from a single fund to which multiple victims had contributed], disapproved on another point in Whitmer, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 739-740; People v. Columbia Research Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d Supp. 33, 41 [

2022(Compare, e.g., People v. Tabb 57 (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1149 [Bailey has generally been limited to thefts involving a single victim] and In re David D. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 304, 310 (David D.) [“one limitation of the Bailey doctrine is its inapplicability to offenses involving multiple victims”] with People v. Brooks (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 24, 31 [applying Bailey to multiple thefts from a single fund to which multiple victims had contributed], disapproved on another point in Whitmer, supra, 59 Cal.4th at pp. 739-740; People v. Columbia Research Corp. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d Supp. 33, 41 [