Court Opinion

ID: 9738749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:02:01.043085+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:08.262013
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
Defendant, Vincent Paul Schieda, was convicted of obtaining money over $100 by false pretenses. MCL 750.218; MSA 28.415. He was sentenced to a term of one year probation and ordered to pay $500 in court costs. He appeals and we affirm.
The relevant facts are these: defendant was hired by the City of Westland to install sewer pipes at 13 locations in the city; defendant billed and was paid for completing the 13 sewer leads, but, in fact, he had completed only 9 of them.
At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict at the close of the people’s proofs. Defendant argues that the prosecutor failed to produce at trial any evidence tending to show that the City of Westland relied upon his false representations. This argument is based upon the fact that an engineering firm employed by the city to inspect the sewer construction and insure that all work was done had evidence in its files on the date that defendant was paid which indicated that all of the work billed had not been completed. From the fact that the agents of the city could have discovered the defendant’s misrepresentation by careful inspection of their own records the defendant concludes that the city could not have justifiably relied upon his statement that all the work was completed when it authorized payment. We disagree.
*423The issue is not whether the officers of the City of Westland could have in the exercise of due diligence and by careful inspection of their own records discovered the fraudulent misrepresentation made by the defendant but rather whether the officers duly authorized to make payment for the city in fact relied upon the defendant’s misrepresentation in approving payment of his invoice. People v Luttermoser, 122 Mich 562, 566; 81 NW 565 (1900).
Although Mr. Keast, an experienced engineering aide for the city, may have acted imprudently in approving defendant’s invoice without checking the inspection reports, that fact is not a defense to prosecution. In the criminal law the relevant issue is whether there was in fact reliance. See People v Johnson, 28 Mich App 10, 18; 183 NW2d 813 (1970). From the earliest times it has been recognized that the very purpose for the false pretenses statute is to protect the negligent, the unwary, the unlearned, and the credulous from the deceit of those who would take advantage of another’s carelessness or incompetence. People v Summers, 115 Mich 537, 545; 73 NW 818 (1898).
In our judgment the evidence presented by the prosecution prior to the time that the motion for a directed verdict was made, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt, People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354, 268; 285 NW2d 284 (1979), that neither Mr. Witala, the superintendent of the Department of Public Services for the city, nor Mr. Keast, the engineering aide who approved defendant’s invoice, nor Mr. Matzo, the city treasurer who paid it, had knowledge that only 9 of the 13 jobs invoiced by defendant had been completed and, further, that all of *424these agents of the city relied upon defendant’s representation that he had completed all 13 jobs in approving payment. This evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Affirmed.