Miller v. State, 53184

Decision Date19 May 1982
Docket NumberNo. 53184,53184
Citation413 So.2d 1041
PartiesHoyle Lee MILLER v. STATE of Mississippi.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Charles R. Brett, Tupelo, for appellant.

Bill Allain, Atty. Gen. by Wayne Snuggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Before SUGG, P. J., and ROY NOBLE LEE and DAN M. LEE, JJ.

DAN M. LEE, Justice, for the Court:

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Prentiss County wherein Hoyle Lee Miller, defendant/appellant, was indicted, tried and convicted for false pretenses by delivery of a bad check. Upon conviction, Miller was sentenced to serve three years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections and fined $1000. We reverse.

In April 1979 appellant contacted Doyle Jackson of Jacobs Furniture Manufacturing, Inc., regarding a purchase of furniture. Jackson agreed to sell appellant ten 3-piece suites of furniture for $3,042.50. Jackson prepared an invoice after this phone call which bore the date of April 18, 1979.

Appellant, his girl friend, and truck driver arrived at Jacobs Furniture on Monday, April 23, 1979 (or April 11, 1979, according to appellant), to take delivery of the furniture. While the furniture was being loaded onto appellant's truck, appellant gave Jackson a check dated April 23, 1979, for $3,077.50. Jackson agreed to hold appellant's check for three days, whereupon appellant, or his truck driver, would return with cash and pick up the check. Appellant, according to Jackson, never indicated the check was not good. Otherwise, he would not have loaded the furniture onto appellant's truck. When Jackson tried to cash the check on May 4, 1979, there were insufficient funds in appellant's account to cover the same.

Appellant, his wife and appellant's truck driver, testified that they took delivery of the furniture from Jackson Furniture on April 11, 1979. Appellant and his wife also asserted that Jackson understood that appellant had insufficient funds to cover the check and further agreed to hold the same until appellant returned from Wichita Falls, Texas, with cash money from the sale of the furniture. Appellant and his witnesses also asserted they picked up only seven suites of furniture instead of the ten suites that were ordered. Appellant and his witnesses also sought to establish his presence in Wichita Falls, Texas, on April 23, 1979.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, whereupon appellant was sentenced to three years in the Mississippi Department of Corrections and fined $1000.

Did the trial court err in overruling appellant's request for peremptory instruction?

Before a conviction can be had on a charge of false pretenses by delivery of a bad check, it is incumbent on the state to prove that a seller parts with something of value on the belief that the check is good at that particular time. Hindman v. State, 378 So.2d 663 (Miss.1980); Pollard v. State, 244 So.2d 729 (Miss.1971); Kitchens v. Barlow, 250 Miss. 121, 164 So.2d 745 (1964); Broadus v. State, 205...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Parker v. State, 55877
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 12 Marzo 1986
    ...Mississippi Constitution of 1890 that: "There shall be no imprisonment for debt.", this Court has repeatedly held, as in Miller v. State, 413 So.2d 1041 (Miss.1982), that: Before a conviction can be had on a charge of false pretenses by delivery of a bad check, it is incumbent on the state ......
  • State v. Allen
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 22 Abril 1987
    ...such as that here made, i.e., a promise to repay money in the future. See Walley v. State, 458 So.2d 734 (Miss.1984), Miller v. State, 413 So.2d 1041 (Miss.1982), Button v. State, 207 Miss. 582, 42 So.2d 733 (1949). As the present indictment charges no factual representation regarding prese......
  • Walley v. State, 55-163
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1984
    ...in the future or to perform service in the future will not sustain the charge of obtaining property under false pretenses. Miller v. State, 413 So.2d 1041 (Miss.1982); Hindman v. State, 378 So.2d 663 In Miller, the Court said: Before a conviction can be had on a charge of false pretenses by......
  • Henderson v. State, 58109
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 23 Noviembre 1988
    ...on that date. This represents a future obligation as to payment of the check not contemplated by the statute. See: Miller v. State, 413 So.2d 1041, 1042 (Miss.1982), and cases cited; Walley v. State, 458 So.2d 734 It is also doubtful if obtaining an option to purchase realty with one year r......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT