People v. Murphy
52 Cal. 4th 81
| Cal. | 2011Background
- Murphy submitted a false theft report to a deputy after a crash; CHP form 180 was signed under penalty of perjury and used to enter data into a national stolen vehicle database.
- Two days later Murphy filed an insurance claim stating the vehicle was stolen under penalty of perjury.
- Murphy was charged with: (i) procuring or offering a false or forged instrument to be filed (Pen. Code, §115(a)); (ii) knowingly presenting a false or fraudulent insurance claim (Pen. Code, §550(a)(4)); (iii) knowingly presenting a false statement in an insurance claim (Pen. Code, §550(b)(1)).
- Trial evidence showed the car was not stolen and Murphy had driven it at the time of the accident.
- Defendant challenged the §115 conviction as precluded by the Vehicle Code provisions that make false vehicle theft reports a misdemeanor (Veh. Code, §10501) or false DMV statements (Veh. Code, §20); the appellate court affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted review.
- Court concluded that the Legislature intended Murphy’s conduct to be prosecuted under Vehicle Code §10501 as a misdemeanor rather than under the general §115 felony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Williamson preclude §115 prosecution when a special statute exists? | Murphy argues §10501 precludes §115. | People contend dual prosecutions are possible. | Yes; Williamson precludes §115 here. |
| Would a false vehicle theft report be an instrument under §115? | Framing of instrument is broad; writing not required. | Instrument could require formality; oral reports may not. | Yes; a false vehicle theft report commonly constitutes an instrument. |
| Should Williamson focus on the filing of a false written report rather than the potential for oral falsity? | Focus on filing a false report as written; realization that filing is common. | Focus on whether the act would violate §115; oral falsity should count. | Defendant correct; focus on filing provision and common violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Williamson, 43 Cal.2d 651 (1954) ( Williamson rule; general vs. special statute preclusion when conduct is covered by special statute)
- People v. Watson, 30 Cal.3d 290 (1981) ( Williamson framework; general vs. special statute in context)
- People v. Ruster, 16 Cal.3d 690 (1976) (forgery vs. unemployment insurance fraud; common forms of fraud preclude general statute)
- People v. Gilbert, 1 Cal.3d 475 (1969) ( welfare fraud precludes theft prosecution under general statute)
- People v. Parks, 7 Cal.App.4th 883 (1992) (documents filed with public records; instrument scope for §115)
- Powers v. Powers, 117 Cal.App.4th 291 (2004) (fishing activity report; instrument scope and scienter requirements)
- People v. Hassan, 168 Cal.App.4th 1306 (2008) (confidential marriage certificates; instrument scope)
- People v. Chardon, 77 Cal.App.4th 205 (1999) (false impersonation; two-way violation context under Williamson)