Section 1802 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

trespassory taking within the meaning of larceny. (Id. at pp. 317–318; see also
People v. Shannon (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 649 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 177].)
Multiple or Single Conviction of Theft-Overall Plan or Scheme
If multiple items are stolen over a period of time and the takings are part of one
intention, one general impulse, and one plan, see CALCRIM No. 1802, Theft: As
Part of Overall Plan.
No Need to Use or Benefit From the Property Taken
It does not matter that the person taking the property does not intend to use the
property or benefit from it; he or she is guilty of theft if there is intent to
permanently deprive the other person of the property. (People v. Kunkin (1973) 9
Cal.3d 245, 251 [107 Cal.Rptr. 184, 507 P.2d 1392]; People v. Green (1980) 27
Cal.3d 1, 57–58 [164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468] [defendant intended to destroy the
property], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826,
834, fn. 3 [226 Cal.Rptr. 112, 718 P.2d 99]; People v. Pierce (1952) 110 Cal.App.2d
598, 609 [243 P.2d 585] [irrelevant that defendant did not personally benefit from
embezzled funds]; see also People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57–58 [115
Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1] [intent to deprive owner of major value or enjoyment].)
Possession
The victim of a theft does not have to be the owner of property, only in possession
of it. (People v. Edwards (1925) 72 Cal.App. 102, 116 [236 P. 944], disapproved on
other grounds in In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 [48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408
P.2d 948].) “Considered as an element of larceny, ‘ownership’ and ‘possession’ may
be regarded as synonymous terms; for one who has the right of possession as
against the thief is, so far as the latter is concerned, the owner.” (Ibid; see also
People v. Davis (1893) 97 Cal. 194, 195 [31 P. 1109] [fact that property in
possession of victim sufficient to show ownership].)
Unanimity of Theft Theory Not Required
If multiple theories of theft have been presented, the jury does not need to agree on
which form of theft was committed. All the jury must agree on is that an unlawful
taking of property occurred. (People v. Counts (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 785, 792–793
[37 Cal.Rptr.2d 425]; People v. Failla (1966) 64 Cal.2d 560, 567–569 [51 Cal.Rptr.
103, 414 P.2d 39] [burglary case]; People v. Nor Woods (1951) 37 Cal.2d 584, 586
[233 P.2d 897] [addressing the issue for theft].) See CALCRIM No. 1861, Jury
Does Not Need to Agree on Form of Theft.
SECONDARY SOURCES
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against
Property, §§ 14–17.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 143, Crimes
Against Property, § 143.01 (Matthew Bender).
CALCRIM No. 1800
THEFT AND EXTORTION
1158

not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of grand
theft.
New January 2006; Revised February 2012, August 2015, April 2020, September
2023
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give an instruction if grand theft has been