California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) (2017)
1932. Possession of Completed Check: With Intent to DefraudDownload PDF
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
1. The defendant possessed a completed (check[,]/ [or] money
order[,]/ [or] traveler’s check[,]/ [or] warrant or county order);
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
New January 2006
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction deﬁning the elements of
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].)
• 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
• 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].
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (3d ed. 2000) Crimes Against
Property, § 173.
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 85,
Submission to Jury and Verdict, § 85.02[a][i] (Matthew Bender).
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 143,
Crimes Against Property, § 143.04,  (Matthew Bender).
See the Related Issues section to CALCRIM No. 1930, Possession of Forged
1933–1934. Reserved for Future Use
CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD CALCRIM No. 1932