Section 1862 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

SECONDARY SOURCES
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against
Property, §§ 40, 42.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 143, Crimes
Against Property, § 143.01[1][e] (Matthew Bender).
CALCRIM No. 1862
THEFT AND EXTORTION
1206

Court (1984) 35 Cal.3d 772, 780 fn. 11 [200 Cal.Rptr. 916, 677 P.2d 1206]; People
v. Braver (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 303, 307–308 [40 Cal.Rptr. 142].) However, other
cases have held, based on the particular facts of the cases, that such evidence was
not admissible. (People v. Parker (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 500, 510 [89 Cal.Rptr. 815]
[evidence that the defendant made full restitution following arrest not relevant];
People v. Wing (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 197, 202 [107 Cal.Rptr. 836] [evidence of
restitution not relevant where defendant falsely signed the name of another to a
check knowing he had no authority to do so].) If such evidence is presented, the
court may give CALCRIM No. 1862, Return of Property Not a Defense to Theft.
(People v. Katzman, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d at p. 791.) In addition, in People v.
Katzman, supra, 258 Cal.App.2d at p. 792, the court held that, on request, the
defense may be entitled to a pinpoint instruction that evidence of restitution may be
relevant to determining if the defendant intended to defraud. If the court concludes
that such an instruction is appropriate, the court may add the following language to
the beginning of CALCRIM No. 1862, Return of Property Not a Defense to Theft:
If the defendant returned or offered to return [some or all of the] property
obtained, that conduct may show (he/she) did not intend to defraud. If you
conclude that the defendant returned or offered to return [some or all of the]
property, it is up to you to decide the meaning and importance of that conduct.
Inducing Mentally Ill Person to Sign Document
In People v. Looney (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 242, 248 [22 Cal.Rptr.3d 502], the
court held that the defendants could not be prosecuted for forgery where the
evidence showed that the defendants induced a mentally ill person to sign legal
documents transferring property to them. The court concluded that, because the
defendants had accurately represented the nature of the documents to the mentally
ill person and had not altered the documents after he signed, they did not commit
forgery. (Ibid.)
SECONDARY SOURCES
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against
Property §§ 165, 168–177.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,
Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[2][a][i] (Matthew Bender).
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 143, Crimes
Against Property, § 143.04[1][a], [d][2][a] (Matthew Bender).
CALCRIM No. 1900
CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD
8

finds that the amount did not exceed $950 or the prior convictions were not proved,
then the offense should be set at a misdemeanor.
RELATED ISSUES
Multiple Checks Totaling Over $950—N