People v. Molina, 388 P.3d 894

Daniela Molina used another person (D.K.)’s last name and Social Security number to secure employment and an apartment lease over a period of years.
Molina was convicted by a jury of two counts of identity theft and three counts of forgery.
On appeal, the court of appeals held the prosecution had to prove Molina knew the identifying information belonged to a real person, found insufficient evidence on that point, vacated the identity-theft convictions, and affirmed the forgery convictions.
The People sought certiorari on three questions: whether proof of the defendant’s knowledge that the information belonged to another person is required; whether the evidence was sufficient to show Molina’s knowledge; and whether employment and an apartment lease qualify as “things of value.”
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari, affirmed that knowledge of another person’s identity is an element, reversed the court of appeals on sufficiency, and held that employment and an apartment lease are “things of value” under the statutory definition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether identity-theft requires proof the defendant knew the information belonged to another person	The People argued prior precedent (Perez) was wrong and knowledge of belonging to a real person is not required	Molina argued the statute requires the prosecution to prove the defendant knew the information belonged to another person	Court held the prosecution must prove the defendant knowingly used information that belonged to another person (affirming Perez)
Whether evidence was sufficient that Molina knew the information belonged to a real person	People argued circumstantial evidence (tax withholdings, repeated testing with employers, use of matching last name) supported knowledge	Molina argued evidence was insufficient to show she knew the SSN/last name belonged to an actual person	Court held the evidence was sufficient (reversing court of appeals)
Whether employment and an apartment lease are "things of value" under the identity-theft statute	People argued the statutory definition in §18-1-901(1)(r) applies and includes contract rights and rights of use, covering employment and leases	Molina relied on Beck to argue "thing of value" should be read narrowly to exclude employment and leases	Court held §18-1-901 definitions apply, overruling Beck, and that employment (contract right) and a lease (contract right and right of use of real property) are "things of value"

People v. Perez, 367 P.3d 695 (Colo. 2016) (held prosecution must prove defendant knew identifying information belonged to another person)
Clark v. People, 232 P.3d 1287 (Colo. 2010) (articulates "substantial evidence" standard for sufficiency review)
People v. Beck, 187 P.3d 1125 (Colo. App. 2008) (county court interpretation of "thing of value"—partially overruled here)
People v. Bennett, 515 P.2d 466 (Colo. 1973) (discusses standard for viewing evidence in sufficiency review)