Section 1804 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

AUTHORITY
•
Elements. Pen. Code § 484; People v. Wooten (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1834, 1842
[52 Cal.Rptr.2d 765]; see People v. Webb (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 688, 693–694
[88 Cal.Rptr.2d 259, 64 Cal. Comp. Cases 1040] [false statement of opinion].
•
Corroboration Requirements. Pen. Code § 532(b); People v. Gentry (1991) 234
Cal.App.3d 131, 139 [285 Cal.Rptr. 591]; People v. Fujita (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d
454, 470–471 [117 Cal.Rptr. 757].
•
Agent. People v. Britz (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 743, 753 [95 Cal.Rptr. 303].
•
Reckless Misrepresentation. People v. Schmitt (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 87, 110
[317 P.2d 673]; People v. Ryan (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 904, 908–909 [230 P.2d
359].
•
Defendant Need Not Be Beneficiary of Theft. People v. Cheeley (1951) 106
Cal.App.2d 748, 753 [236 P.2d 22].
•
Reliance. People v. Wooten (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1834, 1842–1843 [52
Cal.Rptr.2d 765] [defining reliance]; People v. Sanders (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th
1403, 1413 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 806] [reversible error to fail to instruct on reliance];
People v. Whight (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1152–1153 [43 Cal.Rptr.2d 163]
[no reliance if victim relies solely on own investigation].
•
Theft of Real Property by False Pretenses. People v. Sanders (1998) 67
Cal.App.4th 1403, 1413–1417 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 806].
•
Theft by False Pretenses Includes Obtaining Loan by False Pretenses. Perry v.
Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1962) 57 Cal.2d 276, 282–283 [19
Cal.Rptr.1, 368 P.2d 529].
•
Either Token or Writing Must Be False. People v. Henning (2009) 173
Cal.App.4th 632, 641–642 [92 Cal.Rptr.3d 775].
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES
•
Petty Theft. Pen. Code, § 486.
•
Attempted Theft. Pen. Code, §§ 664, 484.
RELATED ISSUES
Attempted Theft by False Pretense
Reliance on the false pretense need not be proved for a person to be guilty of
attempted theft by false pretense. (People v. Fujita (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 454, 467
[117 Cal.Rptr. 757].)
Continuing Nature of False Pretense
Penal Code section 484 recognizes that theft by false pretense is a crime of a
continuing nature and covers any “property or service received as a result thereof,
and the complaint, information or indictment may charge that the crime was
CALCRIM No. 1804
THEFT AND EXTORTION
1168

committed on any date during the particular period in question.” (Pen. Code,
§ 484(a).)
Corroboration—Defined/Multiple Witnesses
“Corroborating evidence is sufficient if it tends to connect the defendant with the
commission of the crime in such a way so as to reasonably satisfy the jury that the
complaining witness is telling the truth.” (People v. Fujita (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d
454, 470 [117 Cal.Rptr. 757].) When considering if the pretense is corroborated the
jury may consider “the entire conduct of the defendant, and his declarations to other
persons.” (People v. Wymer (1921) 53 Cal.App. 204, 206 [199 P. 815].) The test for
corroboration of false pretense is the same as the test for corroborating the
testimony of an accomplice in Penal Code section 1111. (Ibid.; see also Peopl