People v. Rathert
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
WERDEGAR, J.—
In this case we define the mental state necessary to violate Penal Code1 section 529, paragraph 3 (hereafter sometimes paragraph 3), prohibiting false personation. The Court of Appeal held the statute requires an intent to subject the impersonated individual to liability for suit or prosecution, or to secure a benefit for any person. It therefore reversed defendant’s burglary conviction, which was predicated on entry with the intent to commit the underlying felony of false personation, because the pertinent jury instruction prejudicially omitted the required intent element.
2Cases cited22 opinions
- United States v. LanierSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Bouie v. City of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Staples v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- People v. Superior Court (Romero)California Supreme Court · 1996
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- People v. FarleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- People v. BoyceCalifornia Supreme Court · 2014
- Blanco v. MukaseyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- People v. HagedornCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.