Insurance Agent’s Criminal Conviction Reversed in California
December 1, 2013
California law penalizes theft, embezzlement, forgery or fraud with respect to the property of an elder or a dependent adult by any person not a caretaker who knows or reasonably should know that the victim is an elder or a dependent adult. In February 2012 a California insurance agent was convicted of felony theft and sentenced to 90 days in prison for the sale of an annuity to an elderly woman that prosecutors claim had apparent dementia. Recently reversing that conviction in People v. Neasham, the California Court of Appeals assumed that there was evidence sufficient to support findings at trial that the plaintiff was incapable of giving informed consent to the transaction and resolved the matter by examining the alleged substantive offense and associated jury instruction.
Because the prosecution in Neasham did not allege, and the trial court did not instruct the jury to determine, that the agent either induced the plaintiff to purchase the annuity by misrepresenting its terms or embezzled the plaintiff’s funds, the appellate court focused on theft by larceny.
With no allegations or jury instructions as to fraud or embezzlement in the trial court, the appellate court focused on theft by larceny.
The appellate court first held that acceptance of the annuity premium could not constitute larceny because the premium was given to the agent, not taken or converted, in exchange for an annuity of equal value. Moreover, no evidence was offered to suggest that the contract’s penalty and withdrawal provisions somehow reduced the value of the annuity.
Noting that California approved the annuity for sale to persons through age 85, the appellate court asserted that treating the transaction as a trespassory taking would convert otherwise lawful activity into a crime.
The appellate court then found that the trial court’s jury instruction inexplicably omitted larceny’s intent requirement. Reversing the conviction, the appellate court reiterated that omission of an essential element of an offense "is an error of constitutional significance."
©2023 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.