Is restoration of property a defense to an embezzlement charge?

In People v. Edwards, the defendant sought to present evidence that, after obtaining title to the victim's property, he re-conveyed that property back to him. Defendant argued the evidence showed that his intent at the time of the taking was not larcenous. (People v. Edwards, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1092, 1099.) The trial court denied his request and cited sections 512 and 513, which provide that the restoration of property is not a defense to an embezzlement charge. On appeal, the court held that the trial court erred in denying the request and found that sections 512 and 513 were incorrectly applied to defendant's case. (Id. at p. 1101.) The court stated: "Penal Code sections 512 and 513 are aimed at the repentant thief who seeks to return that which he knows he illegally took; these sections are not applicable when a defendant presents a defense and evidence to demonstrate that his handling of the property was consistent with a nonlarcenous intent at the time of the taking." (Id. at p. 1100.) The court also noted that although restoration of property is no defense to a charge of theft, a defendant has a fundamental right to present a defense and all pertinent evidence of significant value to that defense. (Id. at 1099.)