[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 People allege that the defendant forged the following (access cards/
[or] documents authorizing payment by an access card):
<insert description of each item when multiple items alleged>. You may
not ﬁnd the defendant guilty unless you all agree that the People have
proved that the defendant forged at least one of these (cards/documents)
and you all agree on which (card/document) (he/she) forged.]
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 forged multiple
cards or transactions, 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.)
In the deﬁnition of “access card,” the court may give the bracketed portion that
begins with “other than a transfer” at its discretion. This statement is included in
the statutory deﬁnition of access card. (Pen. Code, § 484d(2).) However, the
committee believes it would rarely be relevant.
The court may also give the bracketed sentence stating “(A/An) is
an access card” if the parties agree on that point.
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, § 484f(b).
• Deﬁnitions. Pen. Code, § 484d.
• 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.
CRIMINAL WRITINGS AND FRAUD CALCRIM No. 1955