CALCRIM No. 1932. Possession of Completed Check: With Intent to Defraud (Pen. Code, § 475(c))

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2023 edition)

Download PDF
Bg551
1932.Possession of Completed Check: With Intent to Defraud
(Pen. Code, § 475(c))
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with possessing a completed
(check[,]/ [or] money order[,]/ [or] traveler’s check[,]/ [or] warrant or
county order) with intent to defraud [in violation of Penal Code section
475(c)].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant possessed a completed (check[,]/ [or] money
order[,]/ [or] traveler’s check[,]/ [or] warrant or county order);
AND
2. When the defendant possessed the document, (he/she) intended to
(pass[,]/ [or] use[,]/ [or] aid the passage or use of) the document
in order to defraud.
Someone intends to defraud if he or she intends to deceive another
person either to cause a loss of (money[,]/ [or] goods[,]/ [or] services[,]/
[or] something [else] of value), or to cause damage to, a legal, financial,
or property right.
[For the purpose of this instruction, a person includes (a governmental
agency/a corporation/a business/an association/the body politic).]
A person (passes/ [or] uses) a document if he or she represents to
someone that the document is genuine. The representation may be made
by words or conduct and may be either direct or indirect.
[It is not necessary that anyone actually be defrauded or actually suffer
a financial, legal, or property loss as a result of the defendant’s acts.]
[The (check[,]/ [or] money order[,]/ [or] traveler’s check[,]/ [or] warrant
or county order) may be real or false.]
[The People allege that the defendant possessed the following documents:
<insert description of each document when multiple items
alleged>.You may not find the defendant guilty unless you all agree that
the People have proved that the defendant possessed at least one of these
documents and you all agree on which document (he/she) possessed.]
<Sentencing factor for instruments specified in Penal Code section 473(b)>
[If you find the defendant guilty of possessing a completed (check[,]/ [or]
money order[,]/ [or] traveler’s check) with intent to defraud, you must
then decide whether the value of the (check[,]/ [or] money
order[,]/ [or] traveler’s check) was more than $950. If you have a
39
Bg552
reasonable doubt whether the value of the (check[,]/ [or]
money order[,]/ [or] traveler’s check) has a value of more than $950, you
must find this allegation has not been proved.]
New January 2006; Revised March 2019
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give an instruction defining the elements of the
crime.
If the prosecution alleges under a single count that the defendant possessed multiple
items, the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on unanimity. (See People v.
Sutherland (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 602, 619, fn. 6 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 752].) Give the
last bracketed paragraph, inserting the items alleged. (See also Bench Notes to
CALCRIM No. 3500, Unanimity, discussing when instruction on unanimity is and is
not required.)
People v. Pugh (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 66, 72 [127 Cal.Rptr.2d 770], defines the
term “utter” as to “use” or “attempt to use” an instrument. The committee has
omitted the unfamiliar term “utter” in favor of the more familiar terms “use” and
“attempt to use.”
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “For the purpose of this instruction” if
the evidence shows an intent to defraud an entity or association rather than a natural
person. (Pen. Code, § 8.)
Give the bracketed sentence that begins with “It is not necessary” if the evidence
shows that the defendant did not succeed in defrauding anyone. (People v. Morgan
(1956) 140 Cal.App.2d 796, 801 [296 P.2d 75].)
AUTHORITY
• Elements. Pen. Code, § 475(c).
• 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.
• Unanimity Instruction If Multiple Items. 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].
RELATED ISSUES
See the Related Issues section to CALCRIM No. 1930, Possession of Forged
Document.
CALCRIM No. 1932 CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD
40
Bg553
SECONDARY SOURCES
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against
Property, § 192.
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], [2] (Matthew Bender).
CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD CALCRIM No. 1932
41

© Judicial Council of California.