## Facts

- Monique Bell used Leah Taylor’s personal identifying information, including Taylor’s Social Security number, to apply for and obtain a one-year apartment lease in Taylor’s name.
- The landlord relied on the false application and rented the apartment under Taylor’s identity.
- After taking possession, Bell quickly fell behind on rent, made late and partial payments, and tendered a bad check.
- The landlord brought and won an unlawful detainer action and enforced the judgment against the real Taylor, resulting in a $3,000 garnishment from Taylor’s bank account.
- Taylor challenged the garnishment, which led to discovery of the identity-theft scheme and Bell’s prosecution.
- A jury convicted Bell of multiple offenses, including identity theft, false personation, making a false financial statement, and grand theft; Bell appealed only the grand theft conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the grand theft conviction, specifically whether Bell had the requisite intent to steal at the time she obtained the apartment through identity theft and then failed to pay rent.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the grand theft conviction.
- The court held that a rational jury could find Bell intended to deprive the landlord of property (or its equivalent) under California’s flexible theft-intent standard.
- The court rejected the claim that the conduct was merely a civil nonpayment-of-rent dispute, emphasizing the fraudulent manner of acquisition and the resulting losses.

## Legal Principles

- Theft generally requires intent to permanently deprive the owner of property, but California treats the “permanent deprivation” requirement as flexible rather than literal.
- Theft intent may be established where a defendant intends to take property for temporary use and then abandon it under circumstances making recovery by the owner unlikely, which is treated as the equivalent of permanent deprivation.
- Fraudulent acquisition of a leasehold interest through identity theft may support grand theft where evidence permits an inference that, at the time of taking, the defendant intended to obtain the benefit while shifting predictable, unrecoverable losses to the owner or others.
- On a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, the reviewing court views the record in the light most favorable to the judgment and asks whether any rational trier of fact could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

Because Bell procured the apartment by identity theft and immediately engaged in conduct consistent with nonpayment and predictable, hard-to-recover losses, the evidence permitted the jury to find an intent to steal under California’s flexible theft-intent doctrine, and the grand theft conviction was affirmed.


People v. Bell, 197 Cal. App. 4th 822 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)