California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)

1803. Theft: By Employee or Agent

Download PDF
1803.Theft: By Employee or Agent (Pen. Code, § 487(b)(3))
If you conclude that the defendant committed more than one theft, you
must decide whether the defendant committed multiple petty thefts or a
single grand theft. To prove that the defendant is guilty of a single
grand theft, the People must prove that:
1. The defendant was an (employee/agent) of <insert
name of employer/principal>;
2. The defendant committed theft of property [or services] from
<insert name of employer/principal>;
AND
3. The combined value of the property [or services] that the
defendant obtained during a period of 12 consecutive months
was $950 or more.
If you conclude that the People have failed to prove grand theft, any
multiple thefts you have found proven are petty thefts.
[An agent is a person who represents someone else in dealing with other
people, corporations, or entities.]
New January 2006; Revised February 2012
BENCH NOTES
Instructional Duty
The court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on aggregating the value of the
property or services taken by an employee or agent if grand theft is charged on that
theory.
AUTHORITY
• Aggregating Value of Property Taken by Employee or Agent. Pen. Code,
§ 487(b)(3); People v. Packard (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 622, 626–627 [182
Cal.Rptr. 576].
• Agent Defined. Civ. Code, § 2295.
• Employee Defined. Lab. Code, § 2750.
Secondary Sources
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against
Property, §§ 11, 12.
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 143,
Crimes Against Property, § 143.01[1][a] (Matthew Bender).
1145
0013
COMMENTARY
Penal Code section 487(b)(3) allows the prosecutor, under specified conditions, to
cumulate a series of petty thefts into a grand theft, without having to prove a single
intent or scheme. (People v. Packard (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 622, 626 [182
Cal.Rptr. 576].) Therefore, this instruction does not include a single intent or
scheme as an element. (Compare People v. Daniel (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 168, 175
[193 Cal.Rptr. 277] [theft pursuant to overall plan and single fraudulent intent], and
CALCRIM No. 1802, Theft: As Part of Overall Plan.) Under the appropriate
circumstances, however, a defendant may assert that grand thefts committed against
his or her employer over a period greater than 12 consecutive months should be
combined into a single grand theft in the absence of evidence of separate intents or
plans. (See People v. Packard, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at pp. 626–627 [thefts over
three-year period].)
RELATED ISSUES
See the Related Issues section to CALCRIM No. 1802, Theft: As Part of Overall
Plan.
CALCRIM No. 1803 THEFT AND EXTORTION
1146
0014