Court Opinion

ID: 9653106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:38:52.209083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:56.400857
License: Public Domain

CROW, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result but find it necessary to point out that, contrary to the State’s assertion, the information in the instant case does not track MACH-CR 24.-02.2 in faithful detail. MACH-CR 24.02.2 requires that an information charging stealing by deceit include “a concise statement of the ... essential elements of ‘deceit’ ... as defined in Section 570.010.” (Emphasis added.)
Section 570.010(7), Laws 1979, p. 636, provides, in pertinent part:
*456“ ‘Deceit’ means purposely making a representation which is false and which the actor does not believe to be true and upon which the victim relies, as to a matter of fact, law, value, intention or other state of mind.” (Emphasis added.)
While it might be argued that the information in the instant case implicitly alleges that defendant did not believe the misrepresentation to be true, the information nowhere alleges that the Department of Social Services relied on the misrepresentation. Consequently, it fails to “track” MACH-CR 24.02.2.