People v. Eastburn

189 Cal. App. 4th 1501, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 787 (2010)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

People v. Eastburn

California Court of Appeal
189 Cal. App. 4th 1501, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 787 (2010)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Arnold Sutherland, an 83-year-old man, ran a home-based business under the name Sutherland and Associates. In 2006, Sutherland hired Travis Eastburn (plaintiff). Eastburn was Sutherland’s sole employee and was responsible for reconciling all business expenses in the business checking account and preparing business checks for Sutherland’s signature. The business checking account statements identified the account holder as Sutherland. Sutherland fired Eastburn after only six weeks for poor performance. Sutherland then hired Katharine Rogers. When Rogers attempted to reconcile the business expenses against the business checking account, Rogers discovered that Eastburn had taken nearly $23,000 from the business checking account by forging Sutherland’s signature on checks Eastburn made out to himself. The forged checks contained notations stating either “bonus for new account” or “commission for sales.” However, Sutherland had not paid Eastburn any commissions and had only given Eastburn one $50 bonus during Eastburn’s six-week employment. The business account from which Eastburn stole the $23,000 contained Sutherland’s entire life savings. The State of California (defendant) charged Eastburn with forgery from an elder adult. Eastburn countered, arguing that Sutherland authorized the checks but failed to provide proof beyond testimony from his own fiancée and mother. The jury found Eastburn’s argument unconvincing and convicted Eastburn. Eastburn appealed, arguing that the jury could not convict him of forgery from an elder adult, which carried a higher penalty than regular forgery, because he did not know his victim was Sutherland, an elderly adult, rather than Sutherland and Associates, a business.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Perren, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership