People v sisuphan

Braun for Defendant and Appellant. Defendant and appellant Ronald J. Creath appeals from a judgment after a jury trial resulting in his conviction of grand theft by embezzlement and filing false income tax returns.

People v sisuphan

Adams for Defendants and Respondents.

People v sisuphan

The defendants were accused of grand theft and conspiracy to commit grand theft. The original information containing these accusations was filed on May 20, ; in one count thereof alleged a grand theft offense occurring between September 21,and March 31, ; and in the second count thereof, alleged the conspiracy charge.

An amended information was filed on May 8, ; in Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 thereof alleged the commission of grand theft, i.

People v sisuphan

The defendants moved to set aside the information under Penal Code sectionupon the ground that they had been held to answer to the charges set forth in the information without probable cause. The alleged insufficiency of the evidence to establish probable cause was based upon the claim that the filing of the information was barred by the three- year statute of limitations prescribed by section of the Penal Code.

The People contended that the grand theft offenses came within the category of the offense described in section as "the embezzlement of public money" for which no statute of limitation is prescribed. The trial court concluded that this contention was without merit; determined that prosecution of the offenses alleged in Counts 1 through 4 of the information was barred by the provisions of section ; set aside the information as to those counts; and denied the motion as to Counts 5 and 6.

The People appealed from that part of the order setting aside the information as to Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4. Obtaining funds in such a manner constitutes theft by false representation or false pretense as defined in section of the Penal Code.

Please Sign In or Register

Superior Court, Cal. The issue on appeal is whether filing of the information as to Counts 1 through 4 was barred by section of the Penal Code. A determination of this issue requires a consideration and interpretation of several Penal Code sections.

This redefinition, however, did not change the elements of the several types of theft included therein, and a conviction of the offense of theft can be sustained only if the evidence establishes the elements of one of the consolidated offenses. Ashley, supra, 42 Cal.

Insofar as pertinent to the issue on appeal section provides, in part, that: The provisions of Penal Code section declare that an information charging any felony other than "murder, the embezzlement of public money, the acceptance of a bribe by a public official or a public employee, or the falsification of public records, must Such an interpretation, when applied to other pertinent sections of the Penal Code, creates an uncertainty in sections and Penal Code section states: Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been intrusted.

Theft is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been intrusted. One of them includes many "criminal acquisitive techniques," while the other is limited to the specific technique known to the common law as "embezzlement," i.

Under these circumstances, the provisions of section foreclose the prosecution of the defendants for the [ Cal. This interpretation is supported by other factors. Until the amendment of section and the adoption of section a inwhich was effected by a single statute Stats.

The obvious purpose of section a is to supplement attainment of the purpose of section Application of the former section must be considered in the light of its objective. If it is not so considered, but is applied literally, the resultant conclusions, in many instances, will be absurd and ridiculous.

Well-established rules direct the contrary. Superior Court, 44 Cal. Retirement Board, 42 Cal. Realty Bond Service Corp.

If the interpretation placed upon section a by the People in support of their contention in the instant case is accepted, then the theft of 10 cents from a parking meter would subject the thief to imprisonment in the state prison from 1 to 10 years Pen.The Supreme Court handed a huge victory to Samsung on Tuesday, tossing out nearly $ million in damages it was ordered to pay to Apple in their long-running patent infringement case.

The ruling. Mid term case study Problems Lael Matthews is facing an ethical dilemma issue. She need to decide which of three managers to promote.

Each manager has their advantage and disadvantage own, and Lael’s superior has his . People v. Sisuphan () Issue: Sisuphan claims that he lacked fraudulent intent when he took the money, and that the trial court's ruling violated his Fifth Amendment right to present a defense and "all pertinent evidence of significant value to the defense.".

Flannel () 25 CA3d , , fn 12; see also People v. Wilkins () 56 CA4th , ) However, this standard does not require or permit the trial court to determine the credibility of witnesses, but it merely frees the court from an obligation to instruct upon a theory which the jury could not reasonably find to exist.

(People v. Brooks () 3 Cal.5th 1, ) "A trial court is required to instruct sua sponte on any defense, including self-defense, only when there is substantial evidence supporting the defense, and the defendant is either relying on the defense or the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case.

If you conclude that the People have proved that the defendant committed , the return or offer to return (some/all) of the property wrongfully obtained is not a defense.

PEOPLE v. SISUPHAN | Cal. Ct. App. | Judgment | Law | CaseMine