Section 1905 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

•
Intent to Defraud. People v. Pugh (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 66, 72 [127
Cal.Rptr.2d 770]; People v. Gaul-Alexander (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 735, 745 [38
Cal.Rptr.2d 176].
•
Intent to Defraud Entity. Pen. Code, § 8.
•
Pass or Attempt to Use Defined. People v. Tomlinson (1868) 35 Cal. 503, 509;
People v. Jackson (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 556, 561 [155 Cal.Rptr. 89], overruled
on other grounds in People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1104, 1122 [240
Cal.Rptr. 585, 240 Cal.Rptr. 585, 742 P.2d 1306].
•
Unanimity Instruction If Multiple Documents. People v. Sutherland (1993) 17
Cal.App.4th 602, 619, fn. 6 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 752].
•
Required Additional Findings. Pen.Code, § 473(b).
•
Scope of Pen. Code, § 473(b). People v. Gonzales (2018) 6 Cal.5th 44 [237
Cal.Rptr.3d 193, 424 P.3d 280].
COMMENTARY
The committee was unable to locate any authority for what constitutes “offering to
pass” a forged document. In People v. Compton (1899) 123 Cal. 403, 409–411 [56
P. 44], the court held that attempting to pass a forged document requires, at a
minimum, that the defendant present the document to an innocent party, with an
assertion that the document is genuine. (Ibid.; see also People v. Fork (1965) 233
Cal.App.2d 725, 730–731 [43 Cal.Rptr. 804] [discussing sufficiency of the evidence
for attempting to pass].) In light of this holding, it is unclear if any act less than this
would be sufficient for a conviction for “offering to pass.” The committee urges
caution when considering whether to instruct the jury with the phrase “offering to
pass.”
Penal Code section 470(d) provides that every person who, with the intent to
defraud, falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits, utters, publishes, passes or
attempts or offers to pass, as true and genuine, any of the items specified in
subdivision (d), knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited, is
guilty of forgery. Penal Code section 470(d), as amended by Statutes 2005, ch. 295
(A.B. 361), became effective January 1, 2006. The amendment added “or falsifies
the acknowledgment of any notary public or any notary public who issues an
acknowledgment knowing it to be false” after the list of specified items. The
committee believes that the added language has introduced ambiguities. The phrase
“falsifies the acknowledgment of any notary public” seems to refer back to “person”
at the beginning of subdivision (d), but it’s not clear whether this falsification must
also be done with the intent to defraud in order to be forgery. If so, why was
“acknowledgement of a notary public,” which is parallel in kind to the other
documents and instruments listed in subdivision (d), not simply added to the list of
items in subdivision (d)? With respect to the provisions regarding a notary public
who issues an acknowledgment knowing it to be false, it could be that the
Legislature intended the meaning to be that “[e]very person who . . . falsifies the
acknowledgment of . . . any notary public who issues an acknowledgment knowing
CALCRIM No