Opinion ID: 1749727
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the trial court err in overruling appellant's request for peremptory instruction?

Text: Before a conviction can be had on a charge of false pretenses by delivery of a bad check, it is incumbent on the state to prove that a seller parts with something of value on the belief that the check is good at that particular time. Hindman v. State, 378 So.2d 663 (Miss. 1980); Pollard v. State, 244 So.2d 729 (Miss. 1971); Kitchens v. Barlow, 250 Miss. 121, 164 So.2d 745 (1964); Broadus v. State, 205 Miss. 147, 38 So.2d 692 (1949); Grenada Coca Cola Co. v. Davis, 168 Miss. 826, 151 So. 743 (1934); and Odum v. Tally, 160 Miss. 797, 134 So. 163 (1931). In viewing the evidence on request for a peremptory instruction, we must consider as true all the evidence offered by the state, together with reasonable inferences, and if that evidence will support a verdict of guilty, the question is for the jury to determine. Goldman v. State, 406 So.2d 816 (Miss. 1981). The state's evidence in the case sub judice established that Jackson agreed to hold appellant's check for three days whereupon appellant's truck driver would return with cash money and pick up the check. Jackson, therefore, did not part with his merchandise on the belief that the check was presently good. The evidence established nothing more than a pure and simple credit transaction. Appellant's request for a peremptory instruction should have been granted. Since the evidence failed to establish the crime for which appellant was charged, the cause is reversed and appellant is hereby discharged. REVERSED AND APPELLANT DISCHARGED. PATTERSON, C.J., SUGG and WALKER, P. JJ., and BROOM, ROY NOBLE LEE, BOWLING, HAWKINS and DARDEN, JJ., concur.