SERIES 1800 THEFT AND EXTORTION
F 1802 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 1802.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 1802.1 Inst 1 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Title
F 1802.1 Inst 2 Identification Of Prosecution And Defendant
F 1802.2 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories [Reserved]
F 1802.3 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc.
F 1802.3 Inst 1 (a & b) Jurors Not Required To Decide
F 1802.3 Inst 2 Clarification Of Conflicting Language
F 1802.4 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Burden Of Proof Issues
F 1802.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements
F 1802.5 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Elements And Definitions [Reserved]
F 1802.6 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Defense Theories [Reserved]
F 1802.7 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Preliminary Fact Issues [Reserved]
F 1802.8 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Unanimity/Duplicity/Multiplicity [Reserved]
F 1802.9 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Lesser Offense Issues
F 1802.9 Inst 1 Specification Of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
Return to Series 1800 Table of Contents.
F 1802.1 Titles And Identification Of Parties
F 1802.1 Inst 1 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Title
See generally FORECITE F 200.1.2 Note 2, CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-002, CCM-003, and CCM-004.
F 1802.1 Inst 2 Identification Of Prosecution And Defendant
See generally FORECITE F 100.2 Note 1and CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-005 and CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-006.
F 1802.2 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Tailoring To Facts: Persons, Places, Things And Theories [Reserved]
F 1802.3 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Language That Is Argumentative, Confusing, Etc.
F 1802.3 Inst 1 (a & b) Jurors Not Required To Decide
*Add to CC 1802, paragraph 1, sentence 1 [added language is underlined]:
Alternative a:
If you conclude that the defendant committed more than one theft, you must then attempt to decide if the defendant committed multiple petty thefts or a single grand theft.
Alternative b:
If you conclude that the defendant committed more than one theft, you must then decide, if you can, if the defendant committed multiple petty thefts or a single grand theft.
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 100.7 Inst 1.
F 1802.3 Inst 2 Clarification Of Conflicting Language
*Modify CC 1802, paragraph 1, sentence 1 as follows [added language is underlined]:
If you conclude that the defendant committed more than one theft from the same owner or possessor, you must then . . .
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Need For Non-Conflicting Instructions—See FORECITE F 100.1 Inst 1.
The CALCRIM Deficiency—This change makes sentence 1 consistent with Element 1.
WARNING! Federal constitutional claims may be lost without proper federalization—To preserve federal claims counsel should add the applicable constitutional provisions and authority to the above points and authorities and explain how those provisions will be violated under the circumstances of this case. Potential constitutional grounds for this request include, but are not limited to:
FORECITE CG 2.2 [Burden Of Proof: Elements And Essential Facts]
FORECITE CG 4.1 [Right To Instruct The Jurors On Defense Theories]
In death penalty cases additional federal claims should be added including, but not limited to, those in FORECITE CG 13.
F 1802.4 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Burden Of Proof Issues
F 1802.4 Inst 1 Relating Prosecution Burden To Enumerated Elements
See FORECITE F 400.4 Inst 1.
F 1802.5 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Elements And Definitions [Reserved]
F 1802.6 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Defense Theories [Reserved]
F 1802.7 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Preliminary Fact Issues [Reserved]
F 1802.8 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Unanimity/Duplicity/Multiplicity[Reserved]
F 1802.9 Theft: As Part Of Overall Plan—Lesser Offense Issues
F 1802.9 Inst 1 Specification Of Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
*Modify CC 1802, paragraph 2 as follows [added language is underlined; deleted language is stricken]:
If you conclude that the People have prosecution has failed to prove grand theft beyond a reasonable doubt, any multiple thefts you have found proven are petty thefts.
Points and Authorities
See FORECITE F 400.4 Inst 1.
