Title: State v. Agosta

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

State v. Agosta (2000-387); 173 Vt. 97; 787 A.2d 1252

[Filed 09-Nov-2001]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of  Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                No. 2000-387

State of Vermont	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
     v.	                                         District Court of Vermont,
                                                 Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

Michael Agosta	                                 October Term, 2001 

Howard E. Van Benthuysen, J.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and John Treadwell, Assistant Attorney 
  General, Montpelier, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Robert Appel, Defender General, and William A. Nelson, Appellate Attorney, 
  Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellant.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ.

       MORSE, J.   Defendant Michael Agosta appeals his jury conviction of
  false pretenses,  arguing that the conviction cannot stand because the
  State failed to prove that he misrepresented a  fact affecting the essence
  of the transaction underlying the prosecution.  We reject this argument and 
  thus affirm the conviction.

       In February 1997, Roy Buchsbaum, an out-of-state gun collector,
  obtained a copy of a  circular distributed by defendant advertising exotic
  firearms for sale.  The circular indicated that the  Agosta Firearms
  Company of Williston, Vermont, was clearing out the last of its inventory
  and  "going out of business."  Buchsbaum called defendant at his home in
  Vermont and began negotiating 

 

  a price for three items - two fully automatic rifles and a grenade
  launcher.  As a follow-up to their  conversation, defendant sent Buchsbaum
  correspondence bearing the logo of the Agosta Firearms  Company, Law
  Enforcement Division, and indicating that defendant was federally licensed
  as a class  2 firearms manufacturer and a type 10 manufacturer of
  destructive devices.  In truth, defendant  possessed neither license; his
  class 2 license had expired, and he had withdrawn his previous  application
  for a destructive devices license.

       In correspondence, defendant demanded that Buchsbaum send him half of
  the $8900 sale  price before he would send in the paperwork to get title to
  the three weapons transferred.  In  response, Buchsbaum sent defendant a
  check for $4450 in early March 1997.  Approximately four  weeks later,
  after unsuccessfully attempting to contact one of his local dealers to find
  out if the  transfers for the rifles had been approved, Buchsbaum
  telephoned defendant to have him send the  rifles to a different dealer. 
  Defendant indicated he could do that, but demanded more money.  In  early
  April 1997, Buchsbaum sent defendant another check for $2700.

       When two more months passed without the transfers going through,
  Buchsbaum became  concerned and attempted to call defendant, only to
  discover that defendant's telephone had been  disconnected.  Eventually,
  after finding a listing through the Internet, Buchsbaum was able to locate 
  defendant at a different address and telephone number.  Over the next six
  weeks, Buchsbaum was  unable to reach defendant by telephone or certified
  mail at the new address, even though one of  defendant's relatives had told
  Buchsbaum that defendant was staying at that location.  Finally, in 
  mid-September 1997, Buchsbaum complained to police that he had been
  swindled by defendant.   Police investigated and spoke to defendant on at
  least two occasions.

 

       In March 1998, defendant was arraigned on a charge of false pretenses,
  in violation of 13  V.S.A. § 2002.  After the district court denied
  defendant's motions to suppress certain evidence and  dismiss the charge,
  the case went to trial.  Defendant was convicted by a jury and given a
  suspended  two-to-five-year sentence.  On appeal, he argues that, in a
  prosecution for the crime of false  pretenses, the State must prove that
  the alleged misrepresentation went to the essence of the  transaction. 
  According to defendant, the State failed to make such a showing, the
  evidence was  insufficient to establish that element of the crime, and the
  court committed plain error by failing to  charge the jury on that point.

       Vermont's false pretenses statute, which can be traced back to the
  eighteenth century in one  form or another, imposes criminal penalties upon
  anyone who "designedly by false pretenses" and  "with intent to defraud"
  obtains from another person money or property exceeding twenty-five 
  dollars in value.  13 V.S.A. § 2002.  The basic three elements of § 2002
  are that the defendant must  have (1) acted with intent to defraud, (2)
  used a fraudulent devise or artifice, and (3) obtained money  or property
  valued in excess of twenty-five dollars.  State v. Foley, 140 Vt. 643, 646,