Justia Criminal Law Center California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2023) Criminal Writings and Fraud CALCRIM No. 1935. Making, Passing, etc., Fictitious Check or Bill (Pen. Code, § 476)

CALCRIM No. 1935. Making, Passing, etc., Fictitious Check or Bill (Pen. Code, § 476)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2023 edition)

Download PDF

(v) Check Fraud

1935.Making, Passing, etc., Fictitious Check or Bill (Pen. Code,

§ 476)

The defendant is charged [in Count ] with (possessing[,]/ [or]

making[,]/ [or] passing[,]/ [or] using[,]/ [or] attempting to pass or use)

(a/an) (false/ [or] altered) (check[,]/ [or] bill[,]/ [or] note[,]/ [or other]

legal writing for the payment of money or property) [in violation of

Penal Code section 476].

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must

prove that:

1. The defendant (possessed[,]/ [or] made[,]/ [or] passed[,]/ [or]

used[,]/ [or] attempted to pass or use) (a/an) (false/ [or] altered)

(check[,]/ [or] bill[,]/ [or] note[,]/ [or other] legal writing for the

payment of money or property);

2. The defendant knew that the document was (false/ [or] altered);

[AND]

3. When the defendant (possessed[,]/ [or] made[,]/ [or] passed[,]/ [or]

used[,]/ [or] attempted to pass or use) the document, (he/she)

intended to defraud(;/.)

[AND

4. When the defendant possessed the document, (he/she) intended to

pass or use the document as genuine.]

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).]

[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.]

[A person alters a document if he or she adds to, erases, or changes a

part of the document that affects a legal, financial, or property right.]

A person (passes[,]/ [or] uses[,]/ [or] attempts to pass or use) 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.

[The People allege that the defendant (possessed[,]/ [or] made[,]/ [or]

passed[,]/ [or] used[,]/ [or] attempted to pass or use) 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[,]/

[or] made[,]/ [or] passed[,]/ [or] used[,]/ [or] attempted to pass or use) at

least one document that was (fictitious/ [or] altered) and you all agree on

which document (he/she) (possessed[,]/ [or] made[,]/ [or] passed[,]/ [or]

used[,]/ [or] attempted to pass or use).]

[If you find the defendant guilty of (possessing[,]/[or] making[,]/ [or]

passing [,]/ [or] using[,]/ [or] attempting to pass or use) a fictitious

(check/bill/note/legal writing), you must then decide whether the value of

the (check/bond/bank bill/note/cashier’s check/traveler’s

check/money order) was more than $950. If you have a reasonable doubt

whether the value of the (check/bond/bank

bill/note/cashier’s check/traveler’s check/money order) has a value of

more than $950, you must find this allegation has not been proved.]

New January 2006; Revised April 2011, 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 passed or

possessed multiple forged documents, 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.”

If the prosecution alleges that the defendant possessed the document, give element

4. Do not give element 4 if the prosecution alleges that the defendant made, passed,

used, or attempted to pass or use the document.

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

CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD CALCRIM No. 1935

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, § 476.

• 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, 742 P.2d 1306].

• Alteration Defined. People v. Nesseth (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 712, 718-720 [274

P.2d 479]; People v. Hall (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 343, 352 [130 P.2d 733].

• Unanimity Instruction If Multiple Documents. People v. Sutherland (1993) 17

Cal.App.4th 602, 619, fn. 6 [21 Cal.Rptr.2d 752].

• Explanation of “Fictitious.” People v. Mathers (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1464,

1467-1468 [108 Cal.Rptr.3d 720].

• 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].

LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES

• Attempted Making, etc., of Fictitious Check. Pen. Code, §§ 664, 476.

RELATED ISSUES

Check Fraud

A defendant who forges the name of another on a check may be charged under

either Penal Code section 470 or section 476. (People v. Hawkins (1961) 196

Cal.App.2d 832, 838 [17 Cal.Rptr. 66]; People v. Pearson (1957) 151 Cal.App.2d

583, 586 [311 P.2d 927].) However, the defendant may not be convicted of and

sentenced on both charges for the same conduct. (Pen. Code, § 654; People v.

Hawkins, supra, 196 Cal.App.2d at pp. 839-840; see also CALCRIM No. 3516,

Multiple Counts - Alternative Charges for One Event - Dual Conviction Prohibited.)

SECONDARY SOURCES

2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against

Property, §§ 178, 192, 195.

4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,

Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[2][a][i] (Matthew Bender).

CALCRIM No. 1935 CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 143, Crimes

Against Property, § 143.04[1], [2] (Matthew Bender).

1936-1944. Reserved for Future Use

CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD CALCRIM No. 1935

Page last reviewed May 2023

Today on Verdict

Israeli Accountability to Civilians: World Central Kitchen Part II

In this second of a series of columns on Israel’s strike on the World Central Kitchen convey, Illinois Law professor Lesley M. Wexler explores the lack of individual remedies available to the victims of the strike and other civilian casualties in Gaza, particularly focusing on the limitations of tort liability, solatia, and condolence payments, and the UN Register of Damages.

What Oklahoma Did to Clayton Lockett Ten Years Ago Changed the National Conversation About Botched Executions

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the botched execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma in 2014 and how it marked a turning point in the public perception of capital punishment.