Threestar

People v. Threestar

Good Law
167 Cal. App. 3d 747·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2022·213 Cal. Rptr. 510
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 1, 1985B003329California4,328 words

Opinion

Opinion

Arguelles, J.

Ben Nazareth Threestar (appellant) appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which he was convicted of grand theft with imposition of an additional one year term for taking in excess of $25,000 (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. 1, 12022.6, subd. (a)).

The two questions which we address in this embezzlement case are: (1) whether the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on the affirmative defense set forth in section 511; and (2) whether the standard jury instructions on embezzlement, CALJIC Nos. 14.07 and 14.08 (4th ed. 1979), correctly state the law with respect to embezzlement by an employee agent. Answering both questions affirmatively, we conclude that failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on all of the elements contained in section 511 was reversible error under the facts of this case, but that the standard embezzlement instructions set forth in CALJIC Nos. 14.07 and 14.08 properly stated the law of embezzlement applicable to the prosecution’s version of those facts.

Facts

In 1978, Barbara Tomlinson (Tomlinson) formed a corporation that was later known as Product Innovators (P.I.) to invent and market various products. She had…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.