Court Opinion

ID: 9731672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:54:12.687381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:20.324038
License: Public Domain

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.