FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 98
Go to Volume 7 Table of Contents - Go to Chapter 98 Table of Contents

98.2 Welfare Fraud

    98.2.2 Welfare Fraud: Miscellaneous Issues

    98.2.2.1 Welfare Fraud: Lack Of Entitlement As Element
    98.2.2.2 Welfare Fraud: Expert Testimony
    98.2.2.3 Welfare Fraud: Only One Charge For All Aid Received From Single Act
    98.2.2.4 Welfare Fraud: Accomplice Liability Based On Assistance Of Perpetrator

FORECITE National™
 Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 98

    98.2.2.1    Welfare Fraud: Lack Of Entitlement As Element

RATIONALE: Logically, a person should not be convicted of welfare fraud unless it is proven that he or she was not entitled to such aid.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: An essential element of a welfare fraud is the lack of entitlement to the aid. (See 79 Am. Jur. 2d Welfare Laws § 113 (1975); see also People v. Ochoa (CA 1991) 231 CA3d 1413 [282 CR 805]; People v. Evans (MI 1983) 340 NW2d 291, 293 [ambiguous jury instruction concerning formula to be used in determining amount of benefits received beyond eligibility warranted reversal of conviction]; Hill v. State (MN 1992) 483 NW2d 57, 62 ["[welfare fraud] is knowingly obtaining or attempting to obtain assistance to which one is not entitled by means of a willfully false statement or by intentional concealment of material fact or by other fraudulent device"].)

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.23.2 [Welfare Fraud/MediCal Fraud].

RELATED FEDERAL MODEL INSTRUCTIONS:

See FORECITE National™ 98.2.1.2 [Cross References And Research Notes].

SAMPLE INSTRUCTION:

    Any person who by means of false statement or representation or by impersonation or other fraudulent device, obtained or retained aid for himself or herself or for a child not in fact entitled thereto is guilty of welfare fraud.

    To prove such an offense the prosecution must establish the following elements:

    1.    The defendant knowingly or with intent to deceive or defraud utilized a false statement, representation impersonation or other fraudulent device.

    2.    As a result of the false statement representation, impersonation or fraudulent device the defendant obtained or retained aid from _____________ (insert applicable agency).

    3.    The aid was obtained for or retained by a person not entitled to such aid.

[Source: FORECITE National™.]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 98

    98.2.2.2    Welfare Fraud: Expert Testimony

PRACTICE NOTE: People v. Ochoa (CA 1991) 231 CA3d 1413 [282 CR 805] rejected the prosecution's argument that expert testimony on eligibility requirements and the amount of overpayments may be presented to the jury. The court held that expert testimony regarding welfare regulations is "admissible before the jury when the testimony relates to the application of the regulations, such as the calculations of overpayments, but is not admissible when it relates to the applicability and interpretation of the regulations regarding nonentitlement." [Original emphasis.] (Ochoa, 231 CA3d at 1423-24.)

    See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.8 [Expert Testimony/Scientific Evidence].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.23.2 [Welfare Fraud/MediCal Fraud].

RELATED FEDERAL MODEL INSTRUCTIONS:

See FORECITE National™ 98.2.1.2 [Cross References And Research Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 98

    98.2.2.3    Welfare Fraud: Only One Charge For All Aid Received From Single Act

PRACTICE NOTE: Conviction for multiple violations of the same statute arising from the same conduct is impermissible. (See Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) § 68 pp. 328-29; 334-41; 494-502; see also FORECITE National™ 274.1.4.[Multiple Offenses: One Act One Crime Rule].) Hence, multiple welfare charges for aid received from a single act should not be permitted. (See FORECITE National™ 274.2.4 [Multiple Counts Or Charges: Forgery].)

    For example, in People v. Sepulveda DEPUBLISHED (CA 1991) 229 CA3d 868, 874 [280 CR 778], the court held that all aid received from a single fraudulent act must be aggregated into one felony charge. Though depublished, the opinion contains useful analysis of legislative materials taken from the California State Archives.

OPINION AVAILABLE: Click here. [Opinion Bank # O-305].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.23.2 [Welfare Fraud/MediCal Fraud].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 98

    98.2.2.4    Welfare Fraud: Accomplice Liability Based On Assistance Of Perpetrator

PRACTICE NOTE: People v. Crow (CA 1993) 6 C4th 952, 963 [26 CR2d 1] held that the purchase of a post office box with a false name was sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that the defendant gave the false address to assist his companion in welfare fraud by deceiving county officials into believing that the defendant was not residing with his companion.

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.23.2 [Welfare Fraud/MediCal Fraud].