Opinion ID: 1888690
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Intent to Cheat or Defraud

Text: [T]he crime is complete when the defendant intentionally uses false pretenses to induce another to alter or terminate any of that person's rights or powers concerning the money or property with the intent to cheat or defraud that person. State v. Fiorenzano, 690 A.2d 857, 859 (R.I.1997). This Court has defined an intent to defraud as an intention to deceive another person, and to induce such other person, in reliance upon such deception, to assume, create, transfer, alter or terminate [that other person's]    right, obligation or power with reference to property. Id. (quoting State v. LaRoche, 683 A.2d 989, 996 (R.I.1996)). Such intent can be inferred, and the only relevant time period is when the victim is induced to part with his money or property. Id. at 860 (quoting Aurgemma, 116 R.I. at 429-30, 358 A.2d at 49). An innocent or negligent misrepresentation is insufficient to convict; the defendant must intend to defraud. Id. The state does not have the burden to prove that the defendant intended to permanently deprive a person of his or her property. LaRoche, 683 A.2d at 997; Aurgemma, 116 R.I. at 429-30, 358 A.2d at 49. Further, even proof that a victim has suffered no loss whatsoever or that the money fraudulently obtained has been repaid will not suffice as a defense. Aurgemma, 116 R.I. at 430, 358 A.2d at 49. The trial justice found that Letts's acceptance of a $400 deposit, knowing his bleak financial circumstances, establishes his intent to cheat and defraud the Apontes. The evidence clearly establishes that Letts deposited the $400 check he received from Barbara Aponte. The trial justice found that Letts induced the Apontes to enter into the contract under the intentional false representation that Letts would perform his work within a reasonable time after May 27, 2003, and, as discussed above, we will not disturb that finding. Similarly, it is our opinion that the trial justice did not err when he found that Letts's intent to cheat or defraud was established when he accepted the $400 deposit on May 8, 2003 after intentionally using false pretenses to obtain the deposit from the Apontes.