Opinion ID: 6534236
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Elements of Obtaining Property by False Pretenses

Text: [¶14] Mr. Haskell asserts one of the five elements of obtaining property by false pretenses is to pass title to, meaning the perpetrator must obtain both possession of and title to a victim's property. He argues that Bohling highlights how that element distinguishes obtaining property by false pretenses from the crime of larceny. The State concedes that if we apply Bohling to this case, we must reverse Mr. Haskell's conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses, but asks us to instead reexamine our analysis in Bohling and conclude the State did not have to prove Mr. Haskell obtained both possession and title. [¶15] The statute creating the felony crime of obtaining property by false pretenses states: (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 one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or more[.] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-407 (a)(i) (emphasis added). [¶16] We previously interpreted this statute in Bohling and determined the elements of the crime are: (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. Id. ¶ 31 , 388 P.3d at 510 (emphasis added). We further determined the meaning of obtains in Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-407 (a) is ambiguous. Id. ¶ 20 , 388 P.3d at 506 . After we interpreted the legislature's intent, we concluded, The third element, that the accused obtains property, means that the accused must obtain both title to and possession of the victim's property. Id. ¶ 31, 388 P.3d at 510 . We also noted, [T]itle is synonymous with ownership. Thus, title in this context does not always mean formal title, such as to a vehicle, rather the simple concept of ownership equates to title. Id. ¶ 29 n.8, 388 P.3d at 509 n.8 (citations omitted). We reached our conclusions, in part, by reviewing our prior case law on the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-407 and by comparing that crime with the crime of larceny (now, theft) under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-402 (LexisNexis 2013). Id. ¶¶ 21-30 , 388 P.3d at 506-10 . We determined obtain has always been interpreted to require a wrongdoer to obtain title and possession of a victim's property. Id. ¶ 29, 388 P.3d at 509 . If only possession passes, the crime is larceny if all the elements can be proven under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-402 . Id. [¶17] The State presents several reasons why we should reexamine Bohling . First, the State disputes whether we have always interpreted obtains to include obtaining both possession and title, and it argues several cases are inconsistent with our reasoning in Bohling : Sweets v. State , 2013 WY 98 , 307 P.3d 860 (Wyo. 2013) ; Barker v. State , 599 P.2d 1349 (Wyo. 1979) ; Lopez v. State , 788 P.2d 1150 (Wyo. 1990) ; and Dreiman v. State , 825 P.2d 758 , 761 (Wyo. 1992). The State also claims we discounted the minority approach in other jurisdictions to interpreting false pretenses crimes, which does not require obtaining title as an element of obtaining property by false pretenses. Finally, the State argues we should amend our holding in Bohling based on recent statutory changes.  [¶18] We disagree with the State and decline to reconsider or limit our reasoning in Bohling . The State highlights the circumstances in Sweets , Barker , Lopez , and Dreiman and claims the cases' outcomes would have been different if the parties had raised the question of whether the defendants obtained both possession and title of the victims' property. But, that question was not an issue in those cases. See Sweets , ¶¶ 13-18, 307 P.3d at 865-66 (analyzing whether there was sufficient evidence to establish defendant had the intent to defraud); Barker , 599 P.2d at 1352 (holding that the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses can be committed even when property is obtained by writing a bad check); Lopez , 788 P.2d at 1152-53 (evaluating whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the elements of pretenses and their falsity, but no argument [was] made that Lopez did not obtain property from the Thermopolis bank); Dreiman , 825 P.2d at 762 (considering sufficiency of evidence to support burglary conviction based on intent to commit larceny at time of unlawful entry). 2 Although the State now argues that we should have considered the passing of title and possession when we decided those cases, the State does not reference any holding in the four cases it highlights that contradicts our conclusion in Bohling about our prior case law: In none of our opinions concerning this crime have we ever said that the term 'obtain' means that the wrongdoer only needs to acquire possession and not title; we have always said the contrary. Bohling , ¶ 26, 388 P.3d at 508 . Our conclusion in Bohling remains sound. 3 [¶19] The State also has not demonstrated why our opinion in Bohling needed to adopt or rely on the minority approach in other jurisdictions given established Wyoming law. In matters of first impression, we look to other jurisdictions for guidance, however, the question of whether the obtain element requires a victim to pass title and possession was not a matter of first impression in Bohling . Schnitker v. State , 2017 WY 96 , ¶ 10, 401 P.3d 39 , 42 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Hageman v. Goshen Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 2011 WY 91 , ¶ 9, 256 P.3d 487 , 492 (Wyo. 2011) ); see, e.g. , Martins v. State , 17 Wyo. 319 , 98 P. 709 , 712 (1908) ; Miller v. State , 732 P.2d 1054 , 1063 (Wyo. 1987) (citations omitted). We applied pertinent Wyoming statutes and precedent and found no need to apply, or otherwise be guided by, conflicting decisions from other jurisdictions. Bohling , ¶¶ 22-31, 388 P.3d at 507-10 . [¶20] Our approach to deciding the question in Bohling in 2017 was sound and, contrary to the State's final argument against that case, the legislature has not spoken on the issue in the interim. The State claims that after our decision in Bohling , the legislature enacted legislation that changed the fundamental difference between the crimes of larceny and obtaining property by false pretenses. Notably, however, the changes the State refers to occurred well before we decided Bohling . In 2013, the legislature consolidated the crimes of larceny and larceny by bailee into a single crime of theft under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-402 . 2013 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 191, § 2. 4 The legislature did not  modify Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-407 and it did not eliminate the distinction between larceny (theft) and obtaining property by false pretenses. See id. Unless the legislature substantively changes that distinction, we do not need to revisit our reasoning in Bohling .