Opinion ID: 2618245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 26

Heading: Elements of Conspiracy to Commit Insurance Fraud

Text: The instruction on conspiracy to commit insurance fraud provided that in order to prove insurance fraud, the People must show: 1. That a person presented or caused to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment of a loss covered by insurance, and [¶] 2. That such person acted with the specific intent to defraud. (30) Defendants argue that this instruction is defective because it does not include the legal definition, and precise elements, of the terms fraud and specific intent to defraud. There are two answers to this claim. First, the terms defendants challenge are words in common use and of common knowledge; thus, their definition is not necessary. (See People v. Taylor (1953) 116 Cal. App.2d 802, 806-807 [254 P.2d 179] [not necessary to define fraud, artifice, trick, and device for jury].) Second, because the instruction given was correct, it was incumbent on defendants to request clarifying language. Their failure to do so waived the issue. ( People v. Sully (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1195, 1235 [283 Cal. Rptr. 144, 812 P.2d 163].)