Court Opinion

ID: 9545155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:07:20.784719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:12.335661
License: Public Domain

BURKE, J.
I dissent.Section 476a, by its terms, applies to any person who wilfully, with intent to defraud, makes or delivers a check while knowing that there are insufficient funds on deposit for the payment thereof. As the majority concede, there was ample evidence to support a finding that, although defendant disclosed present insufficiency of funds, he nevertheless intended to defraud the payee, having no intention whatever of making the promised deposit. Thus, the evidence fits squarely within the express language of section 476a.
In my view,' the applicable law and proper analysis of the question before us were set forth by Justice Kaufman in the dissenting opinion prepared by him in this case for the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Second *538Division. That opinion, with appropriate deletions and additions as indicated,1 is as follows:
[ ] As correctly pointed out by the majority, the crucial question is whether the court erred in refusing to give the instruction requested by defendant.
If People v. Burnett, 39 Cal.2d 556 [247 P.2d 828] is controlling, there can be no question that the refusal to give the requested instruction constituted reversible error. (People v. Sears, 2 Cal.3d 180, 190 [84 Cal.Rptr. 711, 465 P.2d 847].) Actually, if Burnett is controlling, defendant w'as entitled as a matter of law to acquittal, for the court in Burnett said, “there can be no conviction under section 476a if the payee is informed by the maker at the time of delivery that there are insufficient funds to pay the check” (39 Cal.2d at p. 559), and it is uncontroverted that defendant disclosed to Mrs. Herberger [Dixon’s bookkeeper] the present insufficiency of funds when he gave her the check.
[ ] [As suggested by the majority], however, Burnett, and, indeed, In re Griffin, 83 Cal.App. 779 [257 P. 458] and People v. Wilkins, 67 Cal.App. 758 [228 P. 367], relied on by Burnett, are not controlling. In none of these cases was there evidence of the defendant’s intent to defraud notwithstanding his disclosure of the present insufficiency of funds. In Burnett, the court found that the insufficiency of funds was disclosed to the payee by issuance of a postdated check simultaneously with a currently dated check, both in payment of a pre-existing obligation. (39 Cal.2d at p. 560.) Assuming that the delivery of the postdated check implied a promise to deposit funds for its payment upon, presentation under the circumstances there disclosed, there was no evidence whatever that the implied promise to deposit funds was made in bad faith and, hence, there was no evidence of an intent to defraud. Likewise, in Griffin it appears that the check was postdated and that the defendant informed the payee of the insufficiency of funds and requested her to hold it until such time as he advised her to present it for payment, as he was expecting to receive funds from his father. (83 Cal.App. at p. 781.) There was no evidence whatever of any bad faith on the part of the defendant and, hence, no evidence of an intent to defraud. Similarly, in Wilkins, the defendant stated to the payee that he did not have sufficient funds in the bank but would have on or about the first of September. (67 Cal.App. at p. 760.) Again, however, there was no evidence whatever of any bad faith on the part of the defendant and, hence, again, there was no evidence of intent to defraud.
*539Conversely, in the case at bench, notwithstanding defendant’s postdating the check and informing Mrs. Herberger of the insufficiency of funds, the evidence is very persuasive that defendant had the intent to defraud at the time he delivered the check. [ ] Although reliance by the payee is required to support a conviction for theft by fraudulent pretenses, reliance by the payee is not an element of the crime proscribed by Penal Code section 476a. (People v. Sherman, 100 Cal.App. 587, 590 [280 P. 708]; People v. Williams, 69 Cal.App. 169, 172-173 [230 P. 667]; 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes (1963) § 480, p. 441.)
It is true that a number of jurisdictions, perhaps the majority, preclude conviction under their “bad check” statutes when the check was postdated or the present insufficiency of funds was disclosed to the payee. (See Annot. at 29 A.L.R.2d 1181.) Some courts reach this result by holding that a postdated check is not a “check” within the meaning of their statute. It is established in California, however, that a postdated check will support a prosecution under Penal Code section 476a. (People v. Bercovitz, 163 Cal. 636, 638 [126 P. 479].) Other courts reach this result on the theory that the disclosure of a present insufficiency of funds negates the intent to defraud. (E.g., State v. Bruce, 1 Utah 2d 136 [262 P.2d 960, 962].) It is manifest, however, that the disclosure of a present insufficiency of funds does not, in every case, negate the defendant’s intent to defraud. The representation implied from the delivery of a check is not that there is then on deposit sufficient funds for the payment thereof but that the check will be paid in full upon presentation to the bank. (People v. Rubin, 223 Cal.App.2d 825, 834 [36 Cal.Rptr. 167, 9 A.L.R.3d 707]; People v. Griffith, 120 Cal.App.2d 873, 880 [262 P.2d 355]; Pen. Code, § 476a, supra.) The disclosure of a present insufficiency of funds, while it constitutes some evidence thereof, is not conclusive evidence of the defendant’s knowledge or intention with respect to the payment of a postdated check upon its presentation to the bank.
It is in recognition of the foregoing that the rule exists that “ ‘[o]ne who negotiates a check with knowledge he has not sufficient funds in the bank to meet it—but who has good reason to believe, and honestly does believe, that it will be paid—cannot be said to have an intent to defraud the payee of the check.’ ” (People v. Rubin, supra, 223 Cal.App.2d at p. 834; People v. Griffith, supra, 120 Cal.App.2d at p. 880; see 1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes, supra, § 486, pp. 444-445.) The defendant’s good-faith belief that the check will be paid upon presentation is material to prove his lack of intent to defraud. Similarly, evidence of his lack of a good-faith belief therein is material to prove his intent to defraud. Indeed, in Witkin, the rule is stated as follows: “If the defendant discloses his lack of funds to the payee, and promises in good faith to deposit them, and the payee consents to the ar*540rangement, there is no fraudulent intent; . . (1 Witkin, Cal. Crimes, supra, § 485, pp; 444, 445; italics added.)
I would hold, therefore, that the general proposition that “there can be no conviction under section 476a if the payee is informed by the maker at the time of delivery that there are insufficient funds to pay the check” (People v. Burnett, supra, 39 Cal.2d at p. 559), is overly broad and inapplicable to the case at bench in which, notwithstanding such disclosure, there was evidence that defendant could not have had a good-faith belief that the check would be paid by the bank upon presentation. The court, therefore, did not err in refusing to give the requested instruction.
The jury was fully instructed that defendant could not be convicted of a violation of Penal Code section 476a unless they found that he made or delivered the check in question with intent to defraud. (CALJIC (2d ed.) No. 425.) They were further instructed that “[a]m intent to defraud is an intent to deceive another person for the purpose of gaining some material advantage over him or to induce him to part with his property or to alter his position to his injury or risk, and to accomplish that purpose by some false statement, false representation of fact, wrongful concealment or suppression of truth, or by any other artifice or act fitted to deceive.” (CALJIC (2d ed.) No. 426.) At trial, in respect to- the bad check charge, defendant’s attorney made to the jury the only argument he could, that defendant’s postdating the check and disclosing to Mrs. Herberger the existing insufficiency of funds to pay the same evidenced his lack of intent to defraud. Obviously, the jury rejected this argument and accepted the rather compelling inference that defendant made and issued the check in bad faith, knowing that he had no reasonable expectation of arranging for payment upon presentation of the check to the bank. The implied determination by the jury that defendant made and issued the check with intent to defraud is amply supported by the evidence.
[ ]I would affirm the judgment of conviction.
McComb, J., concurred.

 Brackets together, in this manner [ ], are used to indicate deletions from the opinion; brackets enclosing material are used to denote insertions or additions. See Keizer v. Adams, 2 Cal.3d 976, 978, footnote 1 [88 Cal.Rptr. 183, 471 P.2d 983].