Opinion ID: 2638921
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence of False Pretenses

Text: [¶ 9] In addressing a claim of insufficiency of the evidence, we must determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. When considering a claim of the sufficiency of the evidence, we review that evidence with the assumption that the evidence of the prevailing party is true, disregard the evidence favoring the unsuccessful party, and give the prevailing party the benefit of every favorable inference that we may reasonably draw from the evidence. We will not reweigh the evidence nor will we re-examine the credibility of the witnesses. Pacheco v. State, 2004 WY 160, ¶ 6, 102 P.3d 887, 889 (Wyo.2004); Mascarenas v. State, 2003 WY 124, ¶ 3, 76 P.3d 1258, 1260 (Wyo.2003)). [¶ 10] The elements of the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses are readily gleaned from Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-407 (LexisNexis 2003), which provides: [4] § 6-3-407. Obtaining property by false pretenses; penalties. (a) A person who knowingly obtains property from another person by false pretenses with intent to defraud the person is guilty of: (i) A felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) years, a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or both, if the value of the property is five hundred dollars ($500.00) or more; or (ii) Repealed by Laws 1984, ch. 44, § 3. (iii) A misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), or both, if the value of the property is less than five hundred dollars ($500.00). [¶ 11] The sense of that statute is supplemented by some statutory definitions. For instance, `[p]erson' includes an individual, partnership, corporation, joint stock company or any other association or entity, public or private. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-104(a)(vii) (LexisNexis 2005). Property is defined as: anything of value whether tangible or intangible, real or personal, public or private. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-104(a)(viii) (LexisNexis 2005). [¶ 12] The State's theory of the case was that Perritt's false pretense was her failure to disclose that her husband Kris was living in her home during the period September 26, 2000, through December 31, 2001. Furthermore, the State argued that she concealed that fact so that she could collect money from DFS on behalf of parents who were eligible for day care services. The State also asserted that Perritt received eighteen checks from the State in the total amount of $25,938.21. [5] It is not contended that Perritt did not actually perform the services for which she was paid, rather it is contended that she was not entitled to those payments because of her false representations to DFS about her husband. The jury was given these instructions in that regard: Instruction No. 7 The elements of the crime of Obtaining Property by False Pretenses, as charged in this case, are: 1. On or about September 26, 2000 through and including on or about December 21, 2001; 2. In Natrona County, Wyoming; 3. The Defendant, Laura Lee Perritt; 4. With the intent to defraud another person, to-wit: the State of Wyoming; 5. Knowingly obtained property from that person, to-wit: the State of Wyoming; 6. By false pretenses; and 7. That the value of property obtained was $500.00 or more. If you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these elements has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the Defendant guilty. If, on the other hand, you find from your consideration of all the evidence that any of these elements has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the Defendant not guilty. [¶ 13] The jury was also given the statutory definitions of person and property. The jury was informed that DFS is an agency of the State of Wyoming. This instruction was also given: YOU ARE INSTRUCTED that a license is not property as between the licensing authority and the license holder. A license is merely a privilege to be granted or denied. We note for the purpose of clarity that, although the statute speaks of a certification process and the piece of paper issued is denominated a certificate, DFS referred to this process as licensing in its rules and regulations and in its organizational structure, and routinely referred to the certificate as a license. This lack of discipline in the use of terminology is of no consequence to the resolution of this case. [¶ 14] The jury was also instructed: Instruction No. 12 You are instructed that to prove the crime of Obtaining Property by False Pretenses it is sufficient if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the pretense proved to be false was a controlling part of the moving causes inducing the owner to part with its property  regardless of the presence of other inducing factors or statements which may have been true. [¶ 15] The crime of false pretenses has deep roots in Anglo-American law. That crime is defined in slightly different ways in the various jurisdictions but as a general rule has five elements: (1) a false representation of a material present or past fact (2) which causes the victim (3) to pass title to (4) his property to the wrongdoer, (5) who (a) knows his representation to be false and (b) intends to defraud the victim. 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 19.7 at 114-115 (2nd ed.2003). [¶ 16] We have articulated our views on the elements of this crime in various ways over the years. For instance, in Martins v. State, 17 Wyo. 319, 98 P. 709, 712-13 (1908) we said: There can be no question upon the face of this statute that the property so obtained, in order to constitute the offense, must be obtained from the owner by means of false pretenses. There can be no party defrauded within the purview of this statute except the owner or one having a special ownership in, and who is induced by false pretenses to part with, his property. The fraud contemplated is the fraud which is perpetrated against the owner of the property. In this respect our statute is different from that of some states, where intent alone is sufficient, regardless of whether it be to defraud any specific person (19 Cyc. 415), or when the attempt to obtain goods by false pretenses is made a distinct felony. Having no statute making it a crime to attempt to obtain goods by false pretenses, decisions under such a statute are inapplicable to the case before us. Under the statute the intent to defraud the person from whom the property is obtained by means of false pretenses is an essential element of the crime. In the absence of such intent the crime is not complete, and even if such intent be present the crime is still not complete unless the party from whom the goods were so obtained was actually defrauded. 19 Cyc. 411, and cases there cited. Naked possession by an agent of his principal's property does not vest title of ownership in such agent. It is said subdivision d, at page 408 of 19 Cyc.: To constitute an obtaining of property, defendant must in the first place acquire at least a voidable title to the property; that is, the owner must intend to invest him with the title, as distinguished from the mere custody or possession of the goods. This text is fully supported by citations in the footnotes. Under a similar statute the Supreme Court of Wisconsin said: The crime is defined in section 4423, St. 1898, and consists in obtaining the money or property of another by false pretenses. It must be obtained from the owner by false pretenses. Owens v. State, 83 Wis. 496, 53 N.W. 736; section 472, 2 Bishop's New Criminal Law. The crime is statutory, and the information should set forth all the requisites of the statute to constitute it. The ownership should by the averments of the information be correctly stated. Bishop's New Criminal Proc. § 173; Wharton's Criminal Law (8th Ed.) §§ 1211, 1223, 932, 977; Wharton's Criminal Ev. § 94; 19 Cyc. 425, 426, 434, and cases cited; Leobold v. State, 33 Ind. 484; Halley v. State, 43 Ind. 509; State v. Miller, 153 Ind. 229, 54 N.E. 808; State v. Lathrop, 15 Vt. 279; Washington v. State, 41 Tex. 583. In the case before us the information charges that the money was obtained from Julius Mayer, and while the ownership is not laid in any one else-nor is it directly laid in Mayer for that matter-yet the inference is that it was his money. Without discussing the sufficiency of the information in this respect, as that question has not been here presented, but conceding for the purpose of this case alone that it is sufficient, we pass to a consideration of the evidence to see if it be sufficient to support a verdict, and whether or not the verdict is contrary to the evidence. From the evidence it appears that the money obtained from Mayer was not his money, but was the money of one Robert Freedman, by whom Mayer was employed, and that Mayer had authority to receive and cash checks as agent for his employer. It is not alleged in the information how or in what capacity Mayer held the money, or the relation if any he sustained to Freedman, nor is it alleged that the money so obtained was Freedman's money. Owens v. State, supra ; Jacobs v. State, 31 Neb. 33, 47 N.W. 422; People v. Krummer, 4 Parker, Cr. R. (N.Y.) 217. The defendant was not charged with obtaining Freedman's money by false pretenses, but with obtaining money from Mayer by false pretenses. In view of the uniform holdings, under a statute similar to ours, that ownership is a material averment and must be proved as laid, it is difficult to understand how A. can be convicted upon an information which charges the obtaining of money under false pretenses from B. upon proof of ownership of the money in C. The issue tendered, if any, was that Mayer was the owner of the money. The proof was that Freedman was the owner. It is not alleged in the information that Mayer was the agent of Freedman, and that pursuant to authority of his principal he acted upon the false representations, and for that reason his agency or right to pay out money other than his own was not in issue. Proof of ownership in Freedman of the money obtained which was offered and submitted by the state was inconsistent upon the face of the information with ownership in Mayer as therein alleged, and, in the absence of allegations showing ownership in Freedman and the agency and authority of Mayer to cash the check with Freedman's money, must be considered and treated as proof of a separate and distinct crime. Such evidence disproved defendant's guilt of the crime as charged. No false pretenses other than those to Mayer are alleged or proven. He was not defrauded, for the money obtained did not belong to him, and upon the evidence in this case, if any one was defrauded, it was Cordove or Romero, and no false representations were made to either of them. The crime, if any was proven, was not the crime charged. It is not necessary to discuss the question as to whether proof alone of possession by Mayer of the money which defendant obtained would be prima facie sufficient to support the verdict if ownership were directly laid in Mayer. Upon the evidence the latter had nothing more than the mere naked possession ( Owens v. State, supra ), and it is sufficient to say that the proof is not limited to his possession alone, but upon the record it is undisputed that Freedman was the owner for whom Mayer was acting. There was more than a variance in the proof; there was a failure to prove the crime, if any, as charged, although proof was submitted tending to prove a separate and distinct crime and with the commission of which the defendant was not charged. The verdict is contrary to the evidence. The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial, or such further proceedings as may be deemed proper not inconsistent with this opinion. [¶ 17] In Lopez v. State, 788 P.2d 1150, 1152 (Wyo.1990), we held: In order to demonstrate a violation of § 6-3-407(a), the State had to establish the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the pretenses; (2) their falsity; (3) the fact of obtaining property by reason of the pretenses; (4) the knowledge of the accused of their falsity; and (5) the intent to defraud. Miller v. State, 732 P.2d 1054 (Wyo.1987); Driver v. State, 589 P.2d 391 (Wyo.1979). [¶ 18] In Craver v. State, 942 P.2d 1110, 1113-14 (Wyo.1997) we held: In Wyoming, convictions for the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses have been limited to misrepresentations of an existing or past fact. In Driver v. State, 589 P.2d 391 (Wyo.1979), this Court acknowledged that it had not yet decided whether a false promise of future action, which at the time of its making the promisor does not intend to perform, will constitute a false pretense under the Wyoming statute. Id. at 393. It remains an open question. At one time, most courts limited the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses to those cases of a misrepresentation of existing fact, but an increasing number of states are applying it to future acts. The reasoning for the change has been explained as follows: While a large number of jurisdictions, sometimes invoking the danger of persons who are guilty of no more than a breach of contract being held criminally liable, have continued to adhere to the traditional rule that the crime of obtaining money or property by false pretenses can only be predicated upon a misrepresentation of a past or existing fact and not upon an intention not to comply with a promise or a statement as to a future act, an increasing number of jurisdictions, usually stressing the opportunities for fraud with impunity under the traditional rule, have held that a present intent not to comply with a promise or a statement as to a future act can be the basis of the crime of obtaining money or property by false pretenses. Michael A. DiSabatino, Annotation, 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 A.L.R.4th 959, 964, 1983 WL 190686 (1983). Because early common law did not recognize the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses when the pretenses amounted to merely a promise of future conduct, and common prudence and caution would have prevented any injury arising from it, it became a generally accepted notion that the failure to pay back money or use it as specified at the time of borrowing raised the concern that disgruntled creditors will instigate criminal proceedings against those who blamelessly encounter ordinary commercial defaults. People v. Ashley, 42 Cal.2d 246, 267 P.2d 271, 280-82 (1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 900, 75 S.Ct. 222, 99 L.Ed. 707 (1954). It is thought by some that allowing the crime to include cases involving future conduct would create a considerable risk of prosecuting one who is guilty of nothing more than a failure or inability to pay his debts. Commonwealth v. True, 16 Mass.App.Ct. 709, 455 N.E.2d 453, 454 (1983); Ashley, 267 P.2d at 282. We, however, agree with the conventional wisdom of Ashley, and a growing number of courts that this result is avoided because something more than mere nonperformance is required to prove the defendant's intent not to perform his promise, and proof of nonperformance alone is not sufficient in criminal prosecutions based on false promises. True, 455 N.E.2d at 454; State v. Aurgemma, 116 R.I. 425, 358 A.2d 46, 49-50 (1976); Ashley, 267 P.2d at 282. Specific intent is an essential element of the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses in Wyoming. In order to succeed in a prosecution for a promise to perform future acts, the State is required to prove that a defendant had the intent not to perform a promise as well as the falsity of the promises/pretenses, that property was obtained by reason of the pretenses, and the knowledge of the accused of their falsity. Lopez v. State, 788 P.2d 1150, 1152 (Wyo.1990); Miller v. State, 732 P.2d 1054, 1063-64 (Wyo.1987). [¶ 19] All of these authorities are instructive, although neither the parties nor the district court made much effort to steer the evidence toward proving, or disproving, the elements of the crime. We have over 1500 pages of transcripts and hundreds of pages of record materials and exhibits. Yet, we are unable to discern in this material the evidentiary facts required to fulfill the basic elemental requirements of the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses. [6] It would not enhance our jurisprudence in this regard, or serve the interests of justice, to attempt to force the facts proven at this trial into a mold that clearly will not contain them. When the statute is read in a logical manner, and in light of the more than five centuries worth of incrustations left by the common law, Perritt simply did not run afoul of the law that protects society from those who would obtain money by false pretenses with the intent to defraud. [¶ 20] Here, Perritt made a statement to the effect that her husband did not live in her home, and/or that he did not have access to the children placed in her care. The prosecution's argument to the jury appeared to be that Perritt would be guilty of obtaining the money by false pretenses if the jury found she lied on the initial application for certification, or if she lied in her application to become eligible to serve DFS clients, or if she lied in each of her applications to DFS for payments. There was no special verdict form, so we are left to guess as to which of these the jury might have agreed upon unanimously. There was some evidence that she made a false statement, and perhaps certainly a less than candid statement, but the proof that it was false cannot be said to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence is even more infirm that the information was withheld with the intent to defraud DFS of property. [¶ 21] Moreover, it is clear that if there were false pretenses at all, it was only in her actual applications for the payments. That application did not require her to identify any household member who may have been convicted of a felony, but rather only those household members who had access to the children. The State appeared to have proved that Perritt's husband frequented her home. His frequent presence does not conflict with the statements Perritt made, given that he was father to one of Perritt's children and shared custody of that child with her, and was stepfather to her other two children. Perritt presented credible evidence that the two of them were separated, and that they were attempting to work out their marital problems while living apart. The State did not meaningfully contradict that evidence. When viewed in the most favorable light conceivable under these circumstances, the State's evidence placed Husband at Perritt's home on several occasions, but never under circumstances where he had unsupervised access to the children. The State's evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Perritt's statements were either false pretenses, as contemplated by the governing statute, or that they were intended to have the effect of defrauding DFS of child care moneys, as the meaning of the phrase with intent to defraud is contemplated by the governing statute. [7] [¶ 22] Because we hold that the evidence was not sufficient in this regard, we need not further address other matters raised by Perritt with respect to the sufficiency of the evidence. However, because we reverse, the sentence, and the provisions for restitution, are also reversed. In this regard, we would be remiss if we did not comment that we would have been compelled to reverse the restitution portion of the sentence on the basis that the State did not prove actual pecuniary damage resulting from the defendant's criminal activity. Wyo. Stat. Ann § 7-9-103(b) (LexisNexis 2005); Bush v. State, 2003 WY 156, ¶¶ 11-15, 79 P.3d 1178, 1183-85 (Wyo.2003). Certainly we do not condone in any way Perritt's lack of candor or her attempt to rationalize her subjective interpretation of the forms she completed, in order that she could obtain a certificate to operate a day care and to qualify for DFS day care funding programs. Her conduct most certainly justified the revocation of her license, perhaps she violated some criminal law, and it is possible that she may be subject to some civil suit. Nonetheless, to the extent Perritt obtained property from the State in these circumstances, she did it the old-fashioned way, she earned it. [¶ 23] Although this disposes of the appeal we will, nonetheless, make brief comment on other issues Perritt raises in the event there are further proceedings on remand to the district court.