What is the test applied by the Court of Appeal to determine whether a defendant has been convicted of grand theft by false pretenses?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Whitmer, 179 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 230 Cal.App.4th 906 (Cal. App. 2014):

9 People v. Gonda (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 774 [188 Cal.Rptr. 295] , upon which appellant relies, is inapposite. There, the appellate court held that grand theft by false pretenses necessarily includes the crimes defined in Corporations Code section 31110 and 31201 , which make it an offense to sell franchises without proper registration or to make specified reports containing false statements or omitting material information. (People v. Gonda, supra, at pp. 778779 , 188 Cal.Rptr. 295.) As the appellate court did not apply the elements tests in reaching these conclusions (see ibid. ), it does not constitute persuasive authority on the issue before us.

9 People v. Gonda (1982) 138 Cal.App.3d 774 [188 Cal.Rptr. 295] , upon which appellant relies, is inapposite. There, the appellate court held that grand theft by false pretenses necessarily includes the crimes defined in Corporations Code section 31110 and 31201 , which make it an offense to sell franchises without proper registration or to make specified reports containing false statements or omitting material information. (People v. Gonda, supra, at pp. 778779 , 188 Cal.Rptr. 295.) As the appellate court did not apply the elements tests in reaching these conclusions (see ibid. ), it does not constitute persuasive authority on the issue before us.

10 In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction ..., the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] Under this standard, an appellate court in a criminal case ... does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] Rather, the reviewing court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] (People v. Vy (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1224 [19 Cal.Rptr.3d 402] .)

10 In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction ..., the relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citations.] Under this standard, an appellate court in a criminal case ... does not ask itself whether it believes that the evidence at the trial established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] Rather, the reviewing court must review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine whether it discloses substantial evidencethat is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid valuesuch that a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] (People v. Vy (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1224 [19 Cal.Rptr.3d 402] .)

Other Questions


When determining whether a crime is factually impossible, can a defendant be convicted of an attempted grand theft by false pretenses? (California, United States of America)
Can a defendant bring an appeal to the Court of Appeal against a finding that the trial court wrongfully convicted him of assault? (California, United States of America)
When determining whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction on appeal, what is the role of the Court of Appeal? (California, United States of America)
How have courts interpreted "force" in determining whether a defendant has been found guilty of grand theft? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant entitled to the benefit of the Court of Appeal's Appeal of Appeal when they are not yet convicted? (California, United States of America)
What are the findings of the Court of Appeal on appeal against the conviction and sentence of a defendant for making false statements under Miranda? (California, United States of America)
What are the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision not to grant defendant's appeal against his conviction for contempt of court? (California, United States of America)
What is the test for determining whether a defendant has been convicted of a prior criminal offence and therefore must proceed further to determine the conduct underlying the conviction? (California, United States of America)
When determining whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction on appeal, what is the role of the Court of Appeal? (California, United States of America)
Is a defendant entitled to the benefit of the Court of Appeal's Appeal of Appeal when they are not yet convicted? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.