Court Opinion

ID: 9567305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:51:57.632202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:31.788926
License: Public Domain

Justice Higgins
dissenting.
The sufficiency of the indictment in this case is directly challenged by the motion to quash. The prosecution is based on the following indictment:
“The Jurors for the State Upon Their Oath Present, That Frank Thomas Springer, Jr. late of the County of Catawba on the 28th day of March, 1972 with force and arms, at and in the county aforesaid, did unlawfully, wil-fully, and feloniously withhold a BankAmericard Credit Card from the control and possession of Mabel L. Long, the person named on the face of such Credit Card and to whom the Credit Card had been issued. This withholding was done without the consent of the' above named Cardholder, to whom such Credit Card has been issued by North Carolina National Bank on September 20, 1971 and which Card was in effect at the time of such withholding, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State.”
The indictment was drawn to charge an offense under G.S. 14-113.9 which provides:
“Credit card theft.— (a) A person is guilty of credit card theft when:
“ (1) He takes, obtains or withholds a credit card from the person, possession, custody or control of another without the cardholder’s consent or who, with knowledge that it has been so taken, ob*639tained or withheld, receives the credit card with intent to use it or to sell it, or to transfer it to a person other than the issuer or the cardholder; or
“(2) He receives a credit card that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the identity or address of the cardholder, and who retains possession with intent to use it or to sell it or to transfer it to a person other than the issuer or the cardholder; or
“(3) He, not being the issuer, sells a credit card or buys a credit card from a person other than the issuer; or
“(4) He, not being the issuer, during any 12-month period, receives credit cards issued in the names of two or more persons which he has reason to know were taken or retained under circumstances which constitute a violation of G.S. 14-113.13 (a) (3) and subdivision (3) of subsection (a) of this section.
“(b) Taking, obtaining or withholding a credit card without consent is included in conduct defined in G.S. 14-75 as larceny.
“Conviction of credit card theft is punishable as provided in G.S. 14-113.17(b). (1967, c. 1244, s. 2).”
In my opinion, a valid indictment must charge the theft of the credit card. The indictment in this case actually charges that which the statute says will be sufficient evidence to make out a case of theft against the person in possession of the stolen card.
In my opinion, the indictment fails to charge the crime of theft and the motion to quash should have been allowed.