People v. Vidana
1 Cal. 5th 632
| Cal. | 2016Background
- Defendant Juanita Vidana, a Robertson’s Ready Mix credit agent, underreported $58,273.02 in cash payments from 12 customers between June 2010 and May 2011; she denied taking money at trial.
- Prosecutor charged and the jury was instructed on both grand theft by larceny (Pen. Code §484(a)/§487) and grand theft by embezzlement (Pen. Code §503); the jury convicted on both counts.
- Trial court suspended sentence and imposed probation, jail time, restitution, and fees; Court of Appeal struck the larceny conviction, holding larceny and embezzlement are not different offenses but two ways of committing a single theft offense.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether larceny and embezzlement are different offenses under §954, and (2) whether §954 permits multiple convictions for different statements of the same offense.
- The Court examined statutory history (notably 1927 amendments consolidating larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses into “theft” and §490a), prior case law on alternative theories, and the text of §954.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant may be convicted of both larceny and embezzlement for the same conduct | The People defended dual convictions as permissible under §954 when statutes have different elements | Vidana argued larceny and embezzlement were consolidated into a single theft offense in 1927, so only one conviction may stand | Court held larceny and embezzlement are different statements of the same offense and a defendant may not be convicted of both based on the same course of conduct |
| Whether the 1927 consolidation changed substantive elements | People argued elements remain in separate statutes so offenses can be distinct | Vidana argued the 1927 amendments and §490a show legislative intent to create a single theft offense | Court found legislative history and §490a support that 1927 consolidation intended a single theft offense despite separate statutes |
| Whether §954 authorizes multiple convictions for different statements of the same offense | People asserted §954 allows charging and convicting on multiple theories | Vidana contended §954 permits charging multiple theories but not multiple convictions for the same offense | Court held §954 does not authorize multiple convictions for different statements of the same offense when based on the same act or course of conduct |
| Whether jury unanimity on the particular theory of theft is required | People relied on precedent allowing alternative-theory convictions without unanimity | Vidana contended dual convictions violate the rule against multiple convictions for the same offense | Court reaffirmed juries may be instructed on alternative theories and needn't unanimously agree on which theory, but that does not permit multiple convictions for the same conduct under different statements of the same offense |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gonzalez, 60 Cal.4th 533 (Cal. 2014) (discusses when different statutory subdivisions are separate offenses for §954 purposes)
- People v. Ortega, 19 Cal.4th 686 (Cal. 1998) (§954 allows multiple convictions when neither offense is necessarily included in the other)
- People v. Pearson, 42 Cal.3d 351 (Cal. 1986) (multiple convictions upheld where one offense is not a lesser-included of the other)
- People v. Williams, 57 Cal.4th 776 (Cal. 2013) (history of consolidation of larceny, false pretenses, and embezzlement into theft)
- People v. Myers, 206 Cal. 480 (Cal. 1929) (early interpretation that 1927 amendments simplified pleading without changing elements)
- People v. Nor Woods, 37 Cal.2d 584 (Cal. 1951) (jury need not unanimously agree on the particular theory of theft)