Neel v. State
| Decision Date | 16 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 3715,3715 |
| Citation | 454 P.2d 241 |
| Parties | Glenn NEEL, Robert Broyles, and Richard Broyles, Appellants (Defendants below), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Before GRAY, C. J., and McINTYRE, PARKER, and McEWAN, JJ.
In Neel v. State, Wyo., 452 P.2d 203, we affirmed the conviction of defendants on a charge of grand larceny. They have petitioned for rehearing, asserting they were not proved guilty of a theft; that if they were to be charged with any crime, it should have been the crime of obtaining property under false pretenses; and that the evidence necessary to prove the charge of obtaining property under false pretenses is different from the evidence required to prove the charge of theft.
It is well settled that where a person by trick or fraud obtains possession of property intending at the time of obtaining the property to convert it to his own use, and does so convert it, the fraud is the equivalent of a felonious taking and the offense is larceny. Annotation 26 A.L.R. 381, 382. In the instant case the jury was expressly instructed to this effect.
Our grand larceny statute, § 6-132, W.S.1957, appears to have been taken from the laws of Indiana, and that state has repeatedly held possession of property obtained by fraud with the intent to steal the same constitutes larceny when there is a felonious appropriation. See Huber v. State, 57 Ind. 341, 346, 26 Am.Rep. 57 (); Bradley v. State, 165 Ind. 397, 75 N.E. 873, 874; and Johnson v. State, 222 Ind. 473, 54 N.E.2d 273, 276.
In 'larceny' owner of the property has no intention to part with title therein to the person taking it although he may intend to part with possession, while in 'false preteneses' owner intends to part with both his possession and title but such are obtained from him by fraud. Warren v. State, 93 Okl.Cr. 166, 226 P.2d 320, 324; 95 Okl.Cr. 160, 241 P.2d 410; People v. Santora, 51 Cal.App.2d 707, 125 P.2d 606, 608. See also Johnson v. State, supra.
If only the possession of the thing of value is obtained and it is then converted by the accused, the crime involved is larceny and not false pretense. Zarate v. People, Colo., 429 P.2d 309, 311. Otherwise stated, one test for distinguishing between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stuebgen v. State, 4325
...essential for the prosecution to prove with competent evidence as is the possession. Neel v.State, 452 P.2d 203, 204 (Wyo.1969), reh. den. 454 P.2d 241. Unfortunately the intent instruction here permits the jury to accept without proof that defendants intended to deliver the marihuana becau......
-
Farbotnik v. State
...the State has the responsibility of proving. Repkie v. State, 583 P.2d 1272 (Wyo.1978); Neel v. State, 452 P.2d 203, reh'g denied, 454 P.2d 241 (1969). The elements of the crime, which the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (1) The crime occurred within the county of Lar......
-
Ibarra v. State
...deemed still to retain a constructive possession of the property"); Otte v. State, 563 P.2d 1361, 1364 (Wyo. 1977) citing Neel v. State, 454 P.2d 241, 242 (Wyo. 1969) ("Fraud vitiates the consent of the victim if the other elements of the crime are present." (citing State v. Jesser, 501 P.2......
-
Newell v. State
...of his motion, his guilt or innocence will be determined by the evidence as a whole. Neel v. State, Wyo.1969, 452 P.2d 203, reh. den. 454 P.2d 241. We find no prejudicial Affirmed. ROSE, Justice (dissenting). PRIOR MISCONDUCT AND TESTING CREDIBILITY The defendant, on trial for robbery befor......
-
Bona Fide Purchasers of Real Property: Fraud Is Not Civil Theft
...of real property itself. 37. See id., CRS § 40-14-2 (1963). 38. Zarate v. People, 429 P.2d 309, 311-12 (Colo. 1967). See Neel v. State, 454 P.2d 241 (Wyo. 39. People v. Warner, 801 P.2d 1187, 1189 (Colo. 1990). See also CRS § 40-5-2 (1967 Supp.). 40. Id.; CRS § 40-5-2(4) (1967 Supp.), curre......