Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERT YARBROW, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1978-11-17
Citations: 86 Cal. App. 3d 445
Docket Number: Crim. No. 30868
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERT YARBROW, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Third Series
Volume: 86
Pages: 445–447

Head Matter:
[Crim. No. 30868.
Second Dist., Div. Five.
Nov. 17, 1978.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ALBERT YARBROW, Defendant and Appellant.
Counsel
Gillingham & Jackson and Howard W. Gillingham for Defendant and Appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Daniel J. Kremer, Assistant Attorney General, A. Wells Petersen, Jeffrey A. Joseph and Gary W. Schons, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion:
Opinion
STEPHENS, J.
There is one issue requiring reversal in this case. We necessarily apply the clear reasoning in People v. Gainer (1977) 19 Cal.3d 835 [139 Cal.Rptr. 861, 566 P.2d 997].
Defendant is entitled to a further comment by this court, albeit advisory only. In case of a retrial, and the giving of an instruction on section 511 of the Penal Code, we see no reason not to give the complete applicable portion of the section rather than omitting a few words:
'Upon any indictment for embezzlement, it is sufficient defense that the property was appropriated openly and avowedly, and under a claim of title preferred in good faith, even though such claim is untenable."
The judgment is reversed.
Kaus, P. J., concurred.