The People v. Williams
57 Cal. 4th 776
| Cal. | 2013Background
- Defendant Williams used re-encoded payment cards to buy Walmart gift cards; one cashier approved a $200 gift card then policy prohibited more such purchases.
- Security alerted, defendant provided receipts and cards; last four digits did not match receipt numbers, and he produced additional re-encoded cards that also failed to match.
- Defendant attempted to leave; he pushed a security guard, receipts dropped, and a brief struggle ensued; he was handcuffed after being wrestled to the ground.
- Recovered from Williams were four re-encoded payment cards and several gift cards; card numbers did not match the receipts, evidencing fraud.
- Williams was charged with multiple offenses including four counts of second degree robbery, burglary, fraudulent use of an access card, grand theft, and forgery; prior serious felony conviction alleged.
- Court of Appeal affirmed most convictions, reversed forgery counts for insufficient evidence, stayed burglary under section 654; Williams challenged four robbery convictions, arguing theft by false pretenses cannot satisfy felonious taking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does felonious taking in robbery require larceny, not false pretenses? | People argues felonious taking can be true under false pretenses. | Williams argues robbery requires larceny; false pretenses cannot satisfy felonious taking. | Felonious taking requires larceny, not false pretenses. |
| Can theft by false pretenses satisfy the felonious taking element of robbery under §211? | People contends 490a and consolidated theft statute allow false pretenses to count as taking. | Williams contends false pretenses cannot be a felonious taking for robbery because no trespassory taking or asportation. | Theft by false pretenses cannot satisfy felonious taking for robbery. |
| What is the proper interpretation of 'felonious taking' in light of consolidated theft statutes and section 490a? | People maintains historical/common-law semantics support broader interpretation under consolidation and 490a. | Williams argues traditional larceny-focused interpretation should apply, not broad theft consolidation. | Felonious taking should be interpreted as larceny-based; not extended to theft by false pretenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gomez, 43 Cal.4th 249 (2008) (larceny elements intertwined with robbery; asportation and force/fear considerations)
- People v. Estes, 147 Cal.App.3d 23 (1983) (robbery as continuing offense; force or fear to retain loot before safety)
- People v. Ashley, 42 Cal.2d 246 (1954) (consolidation of theft offenses; elements preserved under unified 'theft' statute)
- People v. Tufunga, 21 Cal.4th 935 (1999) (interpretation of 'felonious taking' and theft elements; history of robbery)
- Beaver v. People, 186 Cal.App.4th 107 (2010) (theft by false pretenses vs. larceny distinction; duties of trespass doctrine)
- Nguyen v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.App.4th 28 (1995) (section 490a applied to burglary; legislative intent to read 'larceny' as 'theft')