Property Crimes, generally
Category > Property Crimes, generally
The evidence was insufficient to support felony vandalism absent proof that the graffiti removal cost in this case was over $400. The evidence was insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding of felony vandalism absent any evidence that the damage exceeded $400. The prosecution failed to produce an invoice for work done or an estimate for work to be done. The generic one-page graffiti cost removal list suggesting a $400 repair for all acts of graffiti was not specific to the facts of this case, and it was suspicious since it was equal to Penal Code section 594's felony vandalism mark of $400. The conviction was reduced to misdemeanor vandalism. id: 25157
Conviction of filing a false financial statement requires a representation regarding financial condition of appellant as well as ability to pay.Appellant was convicted of filing a false financial statement under Penal Code section 5.32 a, subdivision (1). The provision requires a statement in writing ... respecting ... financial condition. The written documents relied upon in the instant case were insufficient to establish the crime. Nowhere on the account applications, the request for an automated teller card, or the inquiry regarding identification were there any representations regarding the business or financial condition of appellant or her means or ability to pay. The false statements contained in these documents involved appellant's name, address and social security number; they did not involve financial condition within the meaning of section 532 a, subdivision (1). Appellant's conviction under that provision was reversed.id: 10329
Evidence did not support the true findings for burglary and vandalism where the minor hosted a party at her grandmother's house, and "utilities were used" and alcohol consumed.A 17 year-old ward ran away from her juvenile placement and planned to return to Montana. The weekend before she left she hosted a party at her grandmother's house, while the grandmother was away. The juvenile court found true allegations of burglary and vandalism, citing the fact that "utilities were used" and alcohol was consumed in the minor's presence. However, the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that the minor had the necessary intent to commit a theft or felony when she entered her grandmother's home. The evidence was also insufficient to show that she, as opposed to another person, damaged property in the home. The burglary and vandalism findings were reversed.id: 17976
Aider and abetter liability for a section 10802 violation does not attach to conduct committed after the VIN tampering has been completed.Vehicle Code section 10802 prohibits tampering with vehicle identification numbers. Aider and abettor lability for a section 10802 violation does not attach to conduct committed after the tampering with the VIN number has been completed.id: 14833
Provision prohibiting tampering with VIN numbers includes false verification of such numbers to the DMV but does not include other acts done with same purpose but without tampering with VIN numbers.Vehicle Code section 10802 prohibits tampering with vehicle identification numbers to misrepresent and prevent identification of motor vehicles and vehicle parts for the purpose of sale or transfer. The false verification of VIN numbers by such a person authorized to verify such numbers to the Department of Motor Vehicles constitutes a violation section 10802. However, conduct designed to prevent the identity of a vehicle that does not include tampering with the vehicle's VIN is not a violation of section 10802.id: 14868
Updated 4/13/2024Tampering with a VIN provision applies to a defendant who transferred the registration to himself.The crime of tampering with the vehicle identification numbers as described in Vehicle Code section 10802 includes tampering with a single VIN while harboring the requisite mental state. The mental state “for the purposes of sale or transfer” extends to include a person who transfers the registration to himself.id: 28238
Vandalism of a sign attached to a Catholic university building supported a conviction under section 594.3.Defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for vandalism of a religious educational institution under Penal Code section 594.3, subd.(a), because the sign he damaged was not a building or part of the building for purposes of the statute. However, the sign was attached to the building and the evidence supported the conviction.id: 25985
Evidence supported the finding of implied malice for a physician who overprescribed opioids resulting in the death of three people. Defendant was a physician who was convicted of implied malice second degree murder for overprescribing medication resulting in multiple deaths. She argued her conduct was negligent, supporting convictions for involuntary manslaughter, but did not show the necessary recklessness for implied malice. However, the evidence showed defendant subjectively appreciated the risk to her patients of her opioid prescription practices. The evidence showed that her actions in prescribing the opioids were a proximate cause of the victims’ deaths even though they also had methadone or alcohol in their systems.id: 25986
Showing an auto repossession was unlawful was not a defense to felony vandalism. Defendants were convicted of felony vandalism after interfering with someone attempting to repossess a car. They argued defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise various defenses related to an unlawful repossession. However, the defendants had no right to commit a crime in response to an unsanctioned repossession that resulted in a breach of the peace. Trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to raise the defenses or failing to clarify the vandalism instruction.id: 25953
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to vandalism. The trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury that voluntary intoxication is a defense to the charge of vandalism. id: 25490
Defendant committed trespass by his unauthorized presence in the Marina. Evidence supported defendant’s trespass conviction where he entered the Marina without a keycard and interfered with the tenant’s right to exclusive and undisturbed possession of the Marina. It did not matter that he didn’t cause damage to property or obstruct tenants.id: 23822
Intent to defraud is not an element of selling counterfeit merchandise.efendants sold counterfeit merchandise such as Coach, Louis Vuitton and Chanel. Evidence supported the Penal Code section 350 convictions even without evidence showing the labels were “confusingly similar.” Moreover, contrary to defendant’s claim, the prosecution did not have to prove an intent to defraud. The lack of such an intent does not render the provision unconstitutionally vague.id: 23467
An employee who denies computer access to other lawful users may properly be convicted of violating section 502, subd. (c)(5). Defendant, a network engineer, was convicted of denying computer services to an authorized user in violation of Penal Code section 502, subd.(c)(5), based upon his failure to reveal user passwords and IDs when reassigned to a new position. He argued the provision was intended to apply to hackers and not employees authorized to use the system. However, subd.(c)(5) may properly be applied to an employee who uses his or her authorized access to a computer system to disrupt or deny computer services to another lawful user. id: 23372
Vandalism to property owned by more than one victim can be aggregated to establish felony vandalism. Where a defendant commits multiple acts of vandalism pursuant to a single general impulse, intention, or plan, the fact that the damage is to property owned by more than one victim does not preclude aggregation resulting in an offense of felony vandalism.id: 22905
The trial court erred by dismissing charges of misappropriating public funds because the moneys received by the nonprofit group were public funds.Defendant operated “T-Town,” a nonprofit group home. The trial court erred by dismissing the charges of misappropriating public funds because the moneys received by T-Town remain government moneys due to the high degree of supervision and control over its disbursement.id: 22908
In an identity theft case, the prosecution need not prove a victim suffered any loss or damage. Defendants operated a nonprofit group home. They cashed four checks written to employees and independent workers without their permission. The trial court erred by dismissing the identity theft counts because there is no requirement that the prosecution prove as an element of the offense that a victim suffered any loss or damage. id: 22909
Defendant was properly convicted of vandalizing his neighbor’s property even though he never intended to do so where the arson to his own house caused damage to the neighbor’s property. Defendant was convicted of arson for planning the fire to his house, and vandalism based upon the incidental destruction to his neighbor’s property. He argued the trial court erred by failing to instruct on the need to intend to damage the victim’s property. However, a defendant need only act maliciously, and by participating in the arson to his house, he could be convicted of vandalizing the neighbor’s house even without intending any harm to the neighbor’s property.id: 22671
Defendant’s habeas petition seeking relief from his sex offender registration requirement was untimely where he filed it more than a decade after he learned of the obligation. Defendant pled guilty to sexual battery in 1997. He was facing three cases for failing to register as a sex offender beginning in 2008. In 2010, the trial court granted his petition for writ of habeas corpus based on the fact that he had not be advised of the need to register as a sex offender before his 1997 guilty plea. However, the judgment was reversed as defendant’s writ petition was not timely as he learned of his obligation to register in 1997 but did nothing about it.id: 22465
To prove money laundering, the prosecution must show defendant had an illegal business, that he made deposits of $5,000 in criminally derived funds and there was a transfer of the funds out of the account. Defendant was convicted of eight counts of money laundering under Penal Code section 186.10, subd. (a). He argued there was insufficient evidence to show each count involved at least a $5,000 transactional amount derived from or intended to promote criminal activity. However, evidence supported the convictions where in each case there was a deposit of over $5,000 in criminally derived funds followed by a transfer of those funds from a bank account within seven days.id: 19477
A spouse may be guilty of vandalizing community property and the other spouse's separate property inside the marital home.Defendant argued that, as a matter of law, he could not be guilty of vandalizing either community property or his spouse's separate property inside the marital home. However, criminal liability may be imposed on a spouse for intentionally causing harm to property in which the other spouse has an interest, whether the property is individual or marital, whether the harm occurs outside or inside the marital home.id: 18143
Since a forged resident alien card can be used to obtain a social security card and employment, evidence supported the intent to defraud element.Defendant argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for possession of a forged or counterfeit resident alien card in violation of Penal Code section 472. He claimed that because he neither presented nor furnished the card to obtain property or money there was no such evidence or an intent to defraud. However, a counterfeit resident alien card would create a legal obligation or right to someone such as a prospective employer. It could also be used, as it was here, to obtain a social security card. Substantial evidence supported the intent to defraud element.id: 17497
Knowingly accessing data from a computer system is not a strict liability offense.Defendant was convicted of a relatively new computer crime, knowingly accessing and taking data from a computer system under Penal Code section 502, subd.(c)(2). Defendant argued the offense should not be punished as a felony because it lacks a mens rea requirement. However, section 502, subd.(c)(2) is not a strict liability offense and evidence of accidental copying would negate the mental element of the offense.id: 16836
Defendant committed vandalism by writing on a projection booth window of a theater with a marker pen even though the marking could be wiped off.Writing on the glass window of a projection booth of a movie theater with a magic marker constituted defacing, and hence vandalism under Penal Code section 594.id: 14866
Misdemeanor VIN tampering is not a lesser included offense of Vehicle Code section 10802.Defendants were convicted of violating Vehicle Code section 10802 which prohibits tampering with vehicle identification numbers to misrepresent and prevent identification of vehicles and vehicle parts for the purpose of sale or transfer. They argued the trial court erred in failing to instruct on section 10750, subd.(a) - misdemeanor VIN tampering - as a lesser included offense of section 10802. However, not all acts prohibited in section 10802 are also prohibited in section 10750, subd.(a), and therefore the latter is not necessarily included in the former.id: 14867
A deceitful homeowner who attempts to unlawfully encumber his or her own property is subject to the fines under section 115.5.Defendant was convicted of filing false deeds of trust in connection with an elaborate scheme to unlawfully shield a friend's personal assets from collection by judgement creditors. He argued that the two $75,000.00 fines imposed under Penal Code section 115.5 were improper because fines under that section were meant to benefit the owners of the property fraudulently encumbered, and were not meant to protect the interest of the judgement creditors of the property owners. However, nothing in section 115.5 states or implies an exception for deceitful homeowners who unlawfully attempt to encumber their own property.id: 10328
Penal Code section 480 prohibits the counterfeiting of Federal Reserve notes.Defendant was convicted of possessing counterfeit apparatus under Penal Code section 480. He argued the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction because section 480 does not prohibit counterfeiting Federal Reserve notes. Section 480 expressly prohibits counterfeiting of "bank notes or bills." The use of the term "bills" includes Federal Reserve notes.id: 10330
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245