CALCRIM No. 1800. Theft by Larceny (Pen. Code, § 484)

Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2024 edition)

Download PDF
1800.Theft by Larceny (Pen. Code, § 484)
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with [grand/petty] theft [by
larceny] [in violation of Penal Code section 484].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
prove that:
1. The defendant took possession of property owned by someone
2. The defendant took the property without the owner’s [or owner’s
agent’s] consent;
3. When the defendant took the property (he/she) intended (to
deprive the owner of it permanently/ [or] to remove it from the
owner’s [or owner’s agent’s] possession for so extended a period
of time that the owner would be deprived of a major portion of
the value or enjoyment of the property);
4. The defendant moved the property, even a small distance, and
kept it for any period of time, however brief.
[The taking of property can include its consumption or the use of
[An agent is someone to whom the owner has given complete or partial
authority and control over the owners property.]
[For petty theft, the property taken can be of any value, no matter how
New January 2006; Revised August 2016, March 2024
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to give an instruction defining the elements of the
To have the requisite intent for theft, the defendant must either intend to deprive the
owner permanently or to deprive the owner of a major portion of the property’s
value or enjoyment. (See People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57-58 [115
Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1].) Select the appropriate language in element 3.
Related Instructions
If the defendant is also charged with grand theft, give CALCRIM No. 1801, Theft:
Degrees. If the defendant is charged with petty theft, no other instruction is
required, and the jury should receive a petty theft verdict form.
If the defendant is charged with petty theft with a prior conviction, give CALCRIM
No. 1850, Petty Theft With Prior Conviction.
If a different theory of theft is presented, see CALCRIM No. 1804, Theft by False
Pretense, CALCRIM No. 1805, Theft by Trick, CALCRIM No. 1806, Theft by
Embezzlement. See also CALCRIM No. 1861, Jury Does Not Need to Agree on
Form of Theft. The court may also wish to instruct with the bracketed “[by
larceny]” in the first sentence to distinguish this theory of theft from the others.
For theft of real property, use CALCRIM No. 1804, Theft by False Pretense. (See
People v. Sanders (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1413-1417 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 806].)
Elements. Pen. Code, § 484; People v. Williams (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 154, 157
[166 P.2d 63]; People v. Edwards (1925) 72 Cal.App. 102, 112-117 [236 P. 944],
disapproved on other grounds in In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 [48
Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948].
Intent to Deprive Owner of Main Value. People v. Avery, supra, 27 Cal.4th at pp.
57-59; People v. Zangari (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1447 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d
Unauthorized Use of Utilities. People v. Myles (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 711, 731
[306 Cal.Rptr.3d 288].
To constitute a completed theft, the property must be asported or carried away.
(People v. Shannon (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 649, 654 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 177].)
Asportation requires three things: (1) the goods are severed from the possession or
custody of the owner, (2) the goods are in the complete possession of the thief or
thieves, and (3) the property is moved, however slightly. (Ibid.;People v. Edwards
(1925) 72 Cal.App. 102, 114-115 [236 P. 944], disapproved on other grounds in In
re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 [48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408 P.2d 948]; People v. Collins
(1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 295, 299 [342 P.2d 370] [joint possession of property by
more than one thief].) Asportation is fulfilled by wrongful removal of property from
the owner or possessor, against his or her will with the intent to steal it, even
though the property is retained by the thief but a moment. (People v. Quiel (1945)
68 Cal.App.2d 674, 679 [157 P.2d 446].) Paragraph 4 sets forth the asportation
The property taken must have some intrinsic value, however slight. (People v.
Franco (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 535, 542 [84 Cal.Rptr. 513]; People v. Martinez (2002)
95 Cal.App.4th 581, 585 [115 Cal.Rptr.2d 574].) The final bracketed paragraph may
be given on request if the property in question was of slight value.
Petty Theft. Pen. Code, § 486.
Attempted Theft. Pen. Code, §§ 664, 484.
Taking an Automobile Without Consent. Veh. Code, § 10851; People v. Pater
(1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 921, 926 [73 Cal.Rptr. 823].
Auto Tampering. Veh. Code, § 10852; People v. Anderson (1975) 15 Cal.3d 806,
810-811 [126 Cal.Rptr. 235, 543 P.2d 603].
Misdemeanor Joyriding. Pen. Code, § 499b [of bicycle, motorboat, or vessel].
Petty theft is a not lesser-included offense of grand theft when the charge of grand
theft is based on the type of property taken. (People v. Thomas (1974) 43
Cal.App.3d 862, 870 [118 Cal.Rptr. 226].)
Claim of Right
If a person actually believes that he or she has a right to the property even if that
belief is mistaken or unreasonable, such belief is a defense to theft. (People v. Romo
(1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 514, 518 [269 Cal.Rptr. 440]; see also People v. Devine
(1892) 95 Cal. 227, 229 [30 P. 378] [“[i]t is clear that a charge of larceny, which
requires an intent to steal, could not be founded on a mere careless taking away of
anothers goods”]; In re Bayles (1920) 47 Cal.App. 517, 519-521 [190 P. 1034]
[larceny conviction reversed where landlady actually believed she was entitled to
take tenant’s property for cleaning fees incurred even if her belief was
unreasonable]; People v. Navarro (1979) 99 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 4-6, 10-11 [160
Cal.Rptr. 692]; see CALCRIM No. 1863, Defense to Theft or Robbery: Claim of
Community Property
A person may be found guilty of theft of community property, but only if he or she
has the intent to deprive the other owner of the property permanently. (People v.
Llamas (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1729, 1738-1740 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 357].)
Fraudulent Refunds
A person who takes property while in a store and presents it for a refund is guilty of
theft. (People v. Davis (1998) 19 Cal.4th 301 [79 Cal.Rptr.2d 295, 965 P.2d 1165].)
The Supreme Court held that taking with the intent to fraudulently obtain a refund
constitutes both an intent to permanently deprive the store of property and a
trespassory taking within the meaning of larceny. (Id. at pp. 317-318; see also
People v. Shannon (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 649 [78 Cal.Rptr.2d 177].)
Multiple or Single Conviction of Theft-Overall Plan or Scheme
If multiple items are stolen over a period of time and the takings are part of one
intention, one general impulse, and one plan, see CALCRIM No. 1802, Theft: As
Part of Overall Plan.
No Need to Use or Benefit From the Property Taken
It does not matter that the person taking the property does not intend to use the
property or benefit from it; he or she is guilty of theft if there is intent to
permanently deprive the other person of the property. (People v. Kunkin (1973) 9
Cal.3d 245, 251 [107 Cal.Rptr. 184, 507 P.2d 1392]; People v. Green (1980) 27
Cal.3d 1, 57-58 [164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468] [defendant intended to destroy the
property], disapproved on other grounds in People v. Hall (1986) 41 Cal.3d 826,
834, fn. 3 [226 Cal.Rptr. 112, 718 P.2d 99]; People v. Pierce (1952) 110 Cal.App.2d
598, 609 [243 P.2d 585] [irrelevant that defendant did not personally benefit from
embezzled funds]; see also People v. Avery (2002) 27 Cal.4th 49, 57-58 [115
Cal.Rptr.2d 403, 38 P.3d 1] [intent to deprive owner of major value or enjoyment].)
The victim of a theft does not have to be the owner of property, only in possession
of it. (People v. Edwards (1925) 72 Cal.App. 102, 116 [236 P. 944], disapproved on
other grounds in In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 [48 Cal.Rptr. 172, 408
P.2d 948].) “Considered as an element of larceny, ‘ownership’ and ‘possession’ may
be regarded as synonymous terms; for one who has the right of possession as
against the thief is, so far as the latter is concerned, the owner.” (Ibid; see also
People v. Davis (1893) 97 Cal. 194, 195 [31 P. 1109] [fact that property in
possession of victim sufficient to show ownership].)
Unanimity of Theft Theory Not Required
If multiple theories of theft have been presented, the jury does not need to agree on
which form of theft was committed. All the jury must agree on is that an unlawful
taking of property occurred. (People v. Counts (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 785, 792-793
[37 Cal.Rptr.2d 425]; People v. Failla (1966) 64 Cal.2d 560, 567-569 [51 Cal.Rptr.
103, 414 P.2d 39] [burglary case]; People v. Nor Woods (1951) 37 Cal.2d 584, 586
[233 P.2d 897] [addressing the issue for theft].) See CALCRIM No. 1861, Jury
Does Not Need to Agree on Form of Theft.
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against
Property, §§ 14-17.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 143, Crimes
Against Property, § 143.01 (Matthew Bender).

© Judicial Council of California.