Looney

People v. Looney

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 4th 242·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2214·2004 Daily Journal DAR 15209·22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 502·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11281
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 22, 2004B173593California2,325 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hastings, J.

INTRODUCTION

After conducting a preliminary hearing, the magistrate held defendants Burl and Judy Looney to answer on, inter alia, four counts of forgery based upon their actions in inducing Joseph Wickers, who was mentally infirm, to execute several testamentary-related documents. (Pen. Code, § 470, subd. (c).) In the superior court, defendants moved to set aside that portion of the information charging them with forgery on the basis that their actions did not fall within the ambit of the charging statute. (§ 995 .) The court granted the motion. This appeal by the People follows. (§ 1238, subd. (a).)

The People do not claim that defendants committed forgery in the traditional sense by falsifying a signature or altering a document. Instead, the People contend: “The issue before this Court is the interpretation of the crime of forgery[.] Case authority provides that procuring of a genuine signature to an instrument by fraudulent representations constitutes forgery. [Citations.] Defendants created a false reality in Mr. Wickers such that when they induced him to sign the documents giving control and ultimate ownership of his assets to and for the benefit of the…

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.