Court Opinion

ID: 9532384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:20:54.846774+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:45.081089
License: Public Domain

SPIESS, Chief Judge (dissenting). I am unable to agree that the New Mexico court had jurisdiction of the offence involved here. The statute, § 40A-16-6, N.M.S.A.1953, creates an offence denominated “FRAUD.” Fraud is defined by the Act as consisting of “ * * * the intentional misappropriation or taking of anything of value which belongs to another by means of fraudulent conduct, practices or representations.” The jurisdictional question here is, “Where was the property obtained ? ” The facts are undisputed. Defendant falsely represented the existence of liabilities of his employer, Farmers Insurance Exchange, and drew drafts in payment of such nonexistent liabilities upon his employer payable at a bank located in Colorado. These drafts were delivered to a New Mexico bank to be presented for payment in Colorado and the drafts were honored in Colorado. The New Mexico bank was defendant’s agent in effecting collection. § 50A-4 — 201, N.M.S.A.1953. Consequently, the money was obtained in Colorado by defendant’s agent, the New Mexico bank. In my opinion, it is settled that the prosecution for obtaining property by false pretenses must be laid in the jurisdiction where the offence was consummated -by the obtaining of the property. State v. Faggard, 25 N.M. 76, 177 P. 748 (1918); Updike v. People, 92 Colo. 125, 18 P.2d 472 (1933); Connor v. State, 29 Fla. 455, 10 So. 891 (1892); Graham v. People, 181 Ill. 477, 55 N.E. 179 (1899); State v. Smith, 162 Iowa 336, 144 N.W. 32 (1913); State v. Simone, 149 La. 287, 88 So. 823 (1921); Bates v. State, 124 Wis. 612, 103 N.W. 251 (1905); State v. Devot, 66 Utah 319, 242 P. 395, 43 A.L.R. 532 (1925); See Anno. 43 A.L.R. 545. In my opinion the majority view would be sustainable had New Mexico, by an appropriate statute, provided for the punishment of a person committing a crime in whole or in part within the state. See People v. Zayas, 217 N.Y. 78, 111 N.E. 465 (1916); State v. Moore, 189 Wash. 680, 66 P.2d 836 (1937). While it is apparent that a crime was committed, in my opinion it was not committed against the State of New Mexico and the courts of this state, consequently, had no jurisdiction to try the defendant, or impose sentence ttpon him. I, accordingly, respectfully dissent.