Case Name: PEOPLE v. MATTHEWS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1983-03-09
Citations: 124 Mich. App. 23
Docket Number: Docket No. 61146
Parties: PEOPLE v MATTHEWS
Judges: Before: M. F. Cavanagh, P.J., and D. C. Riley, and C. J. Hoehn, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 124
Pages: 23–28

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v MATTHEWS
Docket No. 61146.
Submitted July 21, 1982, at Detroit.
Decided March 9, 1983.
Craig Matthews and Detroit Financial Corporation were charged with obtaining money over the value of $100 by false pretenses. The charge concerned a promise by the defendants to negotiate an agreement with the complainant’s mortgagee to prevent a threatened foreclosure. Defendants filed a motion to quash the information and dismiss the charges, which was denied, Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Joseph A. Gillis, J. Defendants appeal by leave granted. Held:
All the essential elements of the crime were established, including the fact of a false representation that the defendants had in the past negotiated with a nonexistent committee of the mortgage company. The examining magistrate did not err in binding the defendants over for trial, nor did the trial court err in denying the motion to quash.
Affirmed and remanded for trial.
M. F. Cavanagh, P.J., dissented. He would hold that there was no misrepresentation of an existing or past fact, an essential element of the crime charged, and that, therefore, the examining magistrate abused his discretion in binding the defendants over for trial. He would reverse.
Dissent by M. F. Cavanagh, P.J.
1. Criminal Law — Preliminary Examination — Magistrates.
Evidence must be presented on each element of a charged offense, or evidence from which the existence of those elements may be inferred,- in order for a magistrate to bind a defendant over for trial.
References for Points in Headnotes
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 411-413.
32 Am Jur 2d, False Pretenses §§ 12, 32, 51.
32 Am Jur 2d, False Pretenses §§ 12,14.
Modern status of rule that crime of false pretenses cannot be predicated upon present intention not to comply with promise or statement as to future act. 19 ALR5th 959.
2. Criminal Law — Appeal — Preliminary Examination — Magistrates.
A magistrate’s determination of probable cause to bind a defendant over for trial at a preliminary examination will not be upset absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion.
3. False Pretenses — Elements of False Pretenses.
The elements of the offense of obtaining money by false pretenses are: (1) a false representation made about an existing or past fact; (2) the defendant was aware of the falsity of the representation and had an intent to deceive; (3) the defendant accomplished the intended fraud by means of false pretenses; and (4) the victim detrimentally relied on the false representation (MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415).
4. False Pretenses — Misrepresentation of Present or Past Fact.
The pretense relied upon to establish the offense of obtaining-money by false pretenses must be a misrepresentation as to a present or existing fact, or a past fact or event; a false promise about a future event does not establish the element of misrepresentation necessary to prove the offense (MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415).
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Deputy Chief, Civil and Appeals, and Timothy L. Cronin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Clark, Hardy, Lewis, Fine & Pollard, P.C. (by Daniel M. Clark and Neil H. Goodman), for defendants.
Before: M. F. Cavanagh, P.J., and D. C. Riley, and C. J. Hoehn, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
C. J. Hoehn, J.
The facts of this case and the applicable law are adequately set forth in Judge Cavanagh's dissenting opinion. On these facts, we conclude that the examining magistrate did not err in binding defendants over for trial.
The testimony adduced at the preliminary examination indicates that defendant Matthews made a false representation as to a past fact, i.e., that he had in the past negotiated with the mortgage company's foreclosure committee. This representation was patently false since no such committee existed. Thus, we conclude that the prosecution established all the essential elements of the crime.
We note in closing that the liability of the corporation is primary and not vicarious since the originating letter of February 21, 1981, containing the false representation was in the name of the corporation and signed by its president and sole stockholder.
Affirmed and remanded for trial.
D. C. Riley, J., concurred.