People v. Thuy Le Truong
216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 247
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Truong, a Wells Fargo private banker, had authorized access to customer data but was trained not to remove customer paperwork from the bank.
- Mrs. Woods ordered replacement Bank of America credit cards that never arrived at her unlocked curbside mailbox; months later two of those cards were found secreted in Truong’s bedroom dresser.
- Police found two Wells Fargo documents at Truong’s home: a spreadsheet with 48 customers’ names/account numbers and a customer application bearing a coworker’s credentials; Wells Fargo policy prohibited removing such materials.
- Truong gave inconsistent statements about how she obtained the cards and why she did not return them; she acknowledged knowing Wells Fargo forbade possession of the documents offsite.
- Jury convicted Truong of (1) acquisition/possession of access card account information with intent to defraud (Pen. Code §484e(d)), (2) possession of personal identifying information of 10+ persons with intent to defraud (Pen. Code §530.5(c)(3)), (3 & 4) two counts of receiving stolen property (§496(a)) tied respectively to the cards and the spreadsheet, and (5) a misdemeanor §530.5 conviction; court placed her on probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that cards were validly issued to Woodses and intent to defraud | Evidence (cards bearing Woodses’ names, Bank confirmation cards mailed, Woodses’ identification of cards, Truong’s admissions, secreted location, Wells Fargo documents) supports conviction | Prosecution lacked direct Bank of America paperwork/custodian testimony; possession alone and inconsistent statements insufficient to prove intent | Convictions supported by substantial evidence; circumstantial evidence and admissions permitted reasonable inference cards were issued to Woodses and Truong intended to defraud |
| Dual convictions for theft (§484e(d)) and receiving stolen property (§496) based on same credit cards | Prosecution: separate statutes support convictions | Truong: §496 forbids being convicted of theft and receiving the same property | Court: §484e(d) is a theft statute; §496 bars dual convictions for theft and receiving same property — reversed §496 conviction for the cards (count 3); affirmed §484e(d) (count 1) |
| Dual convictions for §530.5(c)(3) identity offense and §496 receiving stolen property based on spreadsheet | Prosecution: both convictions valid | Truong: §530.5 conviction is effectively theft and thus barred by §496 | Court: §530.5(c)(3) is not a theft statute and lacks theft elements; dual convictions do not violate §496 — convictions for counts 2 and 4 affirmed |
| Admission of credit-limit evidence on cards | Prosecution: limit evidence is relevant/contextual | Truong: evidence of credit limit was improper and prejudicial | Any error admitting credit-limit evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (review standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Watkins, 55 Cal.4th 999 (circumstantial evidence standard; appellate review)
- People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (statutory prohibition on dual convictions for theft and receiving stolen property)
- People v. Ceja, 49 Cal.4th 1 (remedy for improper dual convictions between theft and receiving)
- People v. Love, 166 Cal.App.4th 1292 (§484e is a theft statute; §496 applies)
- People v. Camodeca, 52 Cal.2d 142 (factual impossibility irrelevant to proving intent)