Jones v. State, 5 Div. 252.
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | FOSTER, Justice. |
| Citation | 236 Ala. 30,182 So. 404 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 252. |
| Decision Date | 17 June 1937 |
| Parties | JONES v. STATE. |
182 So. 404
236 Ala. 30
JONES
v.
STATE.
5 Div. 252.
Supreme Court of Alabama
June 17, 1937
Rehearing Granted Jan. 20, 1938.
Further Rehearing Denied April 21, 1938.
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of Henry C. Jones for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Jones v. State, 182 So. 402.
Writ awarded; reversed and remanded on rehearing. [182 So. 405]
Lawrence F. Gerald, of Clanton, and Hill, Hill, Whiting & Rives, Ballard & Ballard, and Rushton, Crenshaw & Rushton, all of Montgomery, for petitioner.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.
FOSTER, Justice.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals shows that the indictment contained counts for obtaining property under false pretense under section 4131, Code, and others for obtaining the signature of a person named to a written instrument by false pretense under section 4135, Code.
Petitioner here urges that the several counts were insufficient because the pretense alleged was not sufficient to induce such action, and that it was not the statement of an existing fact or one which previously occurred, but was the expression of a conclusion; and that the counts charging that he obtained property by false pretense are not sufficient because they allege that the property consisted of stock certificates for shares in a corporation, whereas it is urged that it is the share and not the certificate which is personal property, mentioned in section 4131, Code. The form of indictment in this respect is set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and will be inserted in the report of this case.
The Court of Appeals properly answered the first contention, to the effect that the pretense is not sufficient as an inducement for obtaining the stock certificates by quoting from Meek v. State, 117 Ala. 116, 23 So. 155, in substance, that the court will not determine on demurrer whether the alleged pretense was a sufficient inducement when the other requirements exist, except to determine whether such alleged pretense appears on its face to have been frivolous, and, therefore, incapable of thus inducing one to part with his property. In other cases it is said that the indictment must show that the alleged pretense is not immaterial as an inducement, but it need not be the sole or even the decisive inducement. Woodbury v. State, 69 Ala. 242, 44 Am.Rep. 515; Beasley v. State, 59 Ala. 20; 25 Corpus Juris 601, § 28.
Taking the pretense as a whole, we cannot say that it was immaterial or frivolous, in connection with circumstances not necessary to be alleged but which may be proven.
Those cases also sustain petitioner's statement of the rule of law that the representation must not be merely the expression of an opinion then entertained by the defendant, but must relate to an existing fact or one which has theretofore occurred.
Assuming that his advice to Dean to sell his stock was not such a pretense as would justify Dean in claiming that he was defrauded, yet when he tells Mrs. Mitchell as an inducement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Manson v. State, 1 Div. 667
...here, there has been no request for the general affirmative charge as to a particular count not supported by the evidence. Jones v. State, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404 (1937); Latham v. State, 56 Ala.App. 234, 320 So.2d 747, aff., 294 Ala. 685, 320 So.2d 760 (1975); Stover v. State, 36 Ala.App.......
-
McMurphy v. State, 5 Div. 691
...of an opinion then entertained by the defendant, but must relate to existing fact, or to fact which has already occurred. Jones v. State, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404 The cases of Jones v. State, 55 Ala.App. 651, 318 So.2d 348 (1975), and Eaton Page 928 v. State, 16 Ala.App. 405, 78 So. 321, 32......
-
Yeager v. State, 4 Div. 593
...a conviction. Meek v. State, 117 Ala. 116, 23 So. 155, 157 (1898); Jones v. State, 28 Ala.App. 254, 182 So. 402 (1937), cert. granted, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404 Recently, it has been held that reliance is an element of theft by deception, the criminal code version of false pretenses: "The fo......
-
Nashville Trust Co. v. Cleage, 6 Div. 297.
...claimants. Section 48 et seq., Title 10, Code. It is therefore more of value than it was before the adoption of the Act. Jones v. State, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404; Tow v. Evans, 194 Ga. 160, 20 S.E.2d 922, 924; Mills v. Jacobs, 333 Pa. 231, 4 A. 152, 122 A.L.R. 333, and annotations. But it d......
-
Manson v. State, 1 Div. 667
...here, there has been no request for the general affirmative charge as to a particular count not supported by the evidence. Jones v. State, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404 (1937); Latham v. State, 56 Ala.App. 234, 320 So.2d 747, aff., 294 Ala. 685, 320 So.2d 760 (1975); Stover v. State, 36 Ala.App.......
-
McMurphy v. State, 5 Div. 691
...of an opinion then entertained by the defendant, but must relate to existing fact, or to fact which has already occurred. Jones v. State, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404 The cases of Jones v. State, 55 Ala.App. 651, 318 So.2d 348 (1975), and Eaton Page 928 v. State, 16 Ala.App. 405, 78 So. 321, 32......
-
Yeager v. State, 4 Div. 593
...a conviction. Meek v. State, 117 Ala. 116, 23 So. 155, 157 (1898); Jones v. State, 28 Ala.App. 254, 182 So. 402 (1937), cert. granted, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404 Recently, it has been held that reliance is an element of theft by deception, the criminal code version of false pretenses: "T......
-
Nashville Trust Co. v. Cleage, 6 Div. 297.
...claimants. Section 48 et seq., Title 10, Code. It is therefore more of value than it was before the adoption of the Act. Jones v. State, 236 Ala. 30, 182 So. 404; Tow v. Evans, 194 Ga. 160, 20 S.E.2d 922, 924; Mills v. Jacobs, 333 Pa. 231, 4 A. 152, 122 A.L.R. 333, and annotations. But it d......