People v. Barba
149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 371
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ashby’s checks were stolen from his vehicle, containing Ashby Remodeling & Services’ identifying information.
- Barba and Lofgreen cashed stolen Ashby checks at multiple stores in a check-forging scheme.
- The trial court dismissed count 1 (Penal Code 530.5(a)) for lack of personation evidence.
- The People argued no personation requirement exists; the statute targets use of another’s identifying information for unlawful purposes.
- At preliminary hearing, evidence showed defendants obtained and used Ashby’s information to cash stolen checks without consent.
- The appellate court reversed, holding no requirement of personation and that probable cause existed to hold to answer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 530.5(a) require personation of another? | People: statute does not require personation. | Barba/Lofgreen: statute requires personation to violate. | Statute does not require personation; broader identity-theft conduct suffices. |
| Was there probable cause to hold defendants to answer based on the preliminary hearing? | Probable cause shown by willful obtaining and use of Ashby’s info. | Dismissal based on erroneous interpretation negates probable cause. | There was probable cause; dismissal was error. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hagedorn, 127 Cal.App.4th 734 (2005) (read statute with wide scope; no requirement of personation)
- People v. Valenzuela, 205 Cal.App.4th 800 (2012) (identity theft harms extending beyond property)
- In re Rolando S., 197 Cal.App.4th 936 (2011) (elements of 530.5(a) include obtaining and using information)
- People v. Tillotson, 157 Cal.App.4th 517 (2007) (statutory elements and use without consent)
- People v. McKee, 267 Cal.App.2d 509 (1968) (DA may charge highest offense supported by preliminary evidence)
- People v. Soto, 51 Cal.4th 229 (2011) (legislative history can inform statutory interpretation)