California v. Kaufman

A jury convicted Jack Kaufman of grand theft of personal property belonging to his longtime friend Dr. Steven Emmet. At trial, the prosecution's theory was that Kaufman: (1) sold Emmet a promissory note on property owned by Aaron Reinicke; (2) renegotiated the note with Reinicke and reconveyed the property to him free and clear without telling him that Emmet owned the note or informing Emmet of the transaction; and (3) deprived Emmet of Reinicke's final payment of around $36,000 on the note. The prosecution claimed the evidence supported conviction for grand theft by larceny, and the jury was instructed on only that theory of theft. On appeal Kaufman claimed that to the extent any crime occurred, it was theft by false pretenses as to Reinicke, not larceny as to Emmet. Accordingly, he argued the trial court instructed the jury on the wrong offense allegedly committed against the wrong victim. He also argued there was no theft because Emmet exercised his right of recourse, allowing Kaufman to renegotiate the note with Reinicke. Kaufman contended Emmet's alleged attempt to extort repayment from Kaufman was a defense to the crime of larceny, and he asserted the trial court prejudicially erred when it refused to admit relevant evidence or instruct the jury on that defense. The State opposed each of Kaufman's contentions, and argued the court committed sentencing error in ordering summary probation. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the verdict, the Court of Appeal concluded substantial evidence supported Kaufman's conviction for grand theft by larceny, and the trial court properly instructed the jury on that offense. View "California v. Kaufman" on Justia Law