CALCRIM No. 1945. Procuring Filing of False Document or Offering False Document for Filing (Pen. Code, § 115)
Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2020 edition)Download PDF
(vi) Filing False Document
1945.Procuring Filing of False Document or Offering False
Document for Filing (Pen. Code, § 115)
The defendant is charged [in Count ] with (offering a (false/ [or]
forged) document for (filing[,]/ [or] recording[,]/ [or] registration)/having
a (false/ [or] forged) document (filed[,]/ [or] recorded[,]/ [or] registered))
[in violation of Penal Code section 115].
To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must
<Alternative 1A - offering>
[1. The defendant offered a (false/ [or] forged) document for (filing[,]/
[or] recording[,]/ [or] registration)in a public office in
<Alternative 1B - procuring>
[1. The defendant caused a (false/ [or] forged) document to be
(filed[,]/ [or] recorded[,]/ [or] registered) in a public office in
2. When the defendant did that act, (he/she) knew that the
document was (false/ [or] forged);
3. The document was one that, if genuine, could be legally (filed[,]/
[or] recorded[,]/ [or] registered).
New January 2006
The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction defining the elements of the
• Elements. Pen. Code, § 115.
• Materiality of Alteration Not Element. People v. Feinberg (1997) 51
Cal.App.4th 1566, 1578-1579 [60 Cal.Rptr.2d 323].
• Meaning of Instrument as Used in Penal Code section 115. People v. Parks
(1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 883, 886-887 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 450]; Generes v. Justice
Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 678, 682-684 [165 Cal.Rptr. 222]; People v.
Powers (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 291, 295-297 [11 Cal.Rptr.3d 619].
Meaning of Instrument
Penal Code section 115 applies to any “instrument” that, “if genuine, might be filed,
registered, or recorded under any law of this state or of the United States . . . .”
(Pen. Code, § 115(a).) Modern cases have interpreted the term “instrument”
expansively, including any type of document that is filed or recorded with a public
agency that, if acted on as genuine, would have the effect of deceiving someone.
(See People v. Parks (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 883, 886-887 [9 CalRptr.2d 450];
Generes v. Justice Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 678, 682-684 [165 Cal.Rptr. 222].)
Thus, the courts have held that “instrument” includes a modified restraining order
(People v. Parks, supra, 7 Cal.App.4th at p. 886), false bail bonds (People v. Garcia
(1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 297, 306-307 [273 Cal.Rptr. 666]), and falsified probation
work referrals (People v. Tate (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 663, 667 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d
206]). In the recent case of People v. Powers (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 291, 297 [11
Cal.Rptr.3d 619], the court held that fishing records were “instruments” under Penal
Code section 115. The court stated that “California courts have shown reluctance to
interpret section 115 so broadly that it encompasses any writing that may be filed in
a public office.” (Id. at p. 295.) The court adopted the following analysis for
whether a document is an “instrument,” quoting the Washington Supreme Court:
(1) the claimed falsity relates to a material fact represented in the
instrument; and (2a) the information contained in the document is of
such a nature that the government is required or permitted by law,
statute or valid regulation to act in reliance thereon; or (2b) the
information contained in the document materially affects significant
rights or duties of third persons, when this effect is reasonably
contemplated by the express or implied intent of the statute or valid
regulation which requires the filing, registration, or recording of the
(Id. at p. 297 [quoting State v. Price (1980) 94 Wash.2d 810, 819 [620 P.2d 994].)
Each Document Constitutes a Separate Offense
Penal Code section 115 provides that each fraudulent instrument filed or offered for
filing constitutes a separate violation (subdivision (b)) and may be punished
separately (subdivision (d)). “Thus, the Legislature has unmistakably authorized the
imposition of separate penalties for each prohibited act even though they may be
part of a continuous course of conduct and have the same objective.” (People v.
Gangemi (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1800 [17 Cal.Rptr.2d 462].)
2 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Crimes Against
Property, §§ 188-189.
CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD CALCRIM No. 1945
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 143, Crimes
Against Property, § 143.04[b] (Matthew Bender).
1946-1949. Reserved for Future Use
CALCRIM No. 1945 CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD