People v. Vida, 57
| Decision Date | 09 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 57,No. 1,57,1 |
| Citation | 140 N.W.2d 559,2 Mich.App. 409 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest J. VIDA, Defendant-Appellant. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Ivan E. Barris, Detroit, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Samuel H. Olsen, Pros. Atty., Wayne County, Detroit, for appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C. J., and QUINN and WATTS, JJ.
Ernest J. Vida was convicted in the recorder's court of Detroit of obtaining property of a value of more than $100 by false pretenses in violation of C.L.S.1961, § 750.218 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.415) and was sentenced to prison for a period of not less than 7 1/2 nor more than 10 years. Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was transferred to the Court of Appeals on October 14, 1964.
Testimony was introduced tending to show that on January 24, 1963, defendant Vida representing himself as George Annis made a small rental deposit on a vacant store in the city of Pontiac, Michigan, under the name of Annis Real Estate and Tax Office. There is no record of a George Annis being licensed as a real estate broker or real estate salesman in the State of Michigan. On that same day, the defendant represented himself as George Annis to an employee of the Oakland county clerk's office and filed a certificate of doing business under the name of Annis Real Estate and Tax Service.
On January 26, 1963, the defendant representing himself as George Annis opened a checking account at a local bank with a deposit of $50.
Complainant Melbourne P. King testified that on February 3, 1963, his advertisement for the sale of an automobile appeared in a Detroit newspaper and on that day the defendant answered the advertisement.
Defendant, representing himself as George Annis of the Annis Real Estate and Tax Service, negotiated with the complainant for the purchase of an Oldsmobile automobile for defendant's wife. Defendant represented to the complainant that defendant was in the real estate business; he gave a postdated company check bearing the name, address and telephone number of the Annis Real Estate and Tax Service in the amount of $2,660. The defendant took possession of the automobile, which has not been located to the present time. On February 4, 1963, the complainant attempted to cash the postdated check, which was returned with the notation 'insufficient funds'.
The record clearly indicates that defendant Vida falsely represented himself as George Annis, that he was in the real estate business, 1 and that the automobile was being purchased for his wife.
The record also indicates that the complainant believed and relied on the defendant's false pretenses and was induced to give up possession of his automobile.
The record further tindicates like and similar false representations were made by the defendant to other persons the day before and on the same day that the false representations were made to the complainant.
The People contend that the defendant may be found guilty of false pretenses based upon a promise to act in the future coupled with a misrepresentation of past and existing facts made as inducements for the delivery of personal property.
The People further contend that the defendant's silence on the purchase of two cars for his wife on February 2 and 3, 1963, just prior to his negotiations with the complainant, is evidence of false pretense.
Was sufficient and competent testimony presented to make an issue of fact for the jury as to defendant's guilt and to support the jury's verdict of guilty?
Was it reversible error for the court to instruct the jury that they may consider nondisclosure of the purchase of two other automobiles on the same day by the defendant for his wife as evidence of false pretense?
Defense counsel contends that a false pretense must relate to an existing fact and cannot consist of a promise concerning what might occur in the future; that silence does not constitute a false pretense; and that the court committed several errors in the trial of the instant case.
As a result of these contentions, defense counsel requested and the trial court properly denied motions to strike sub-paragraph 8 of count one of the information:
'There would be sufficient funds in the Pontiac State Bank to cover the check of $2,660 drawn on that bank, and delivered by the said Ernest John Vida, alias George Annis, to the said Melbourne P. King at the time of the presentment of the said check;'
and sub-paragraph 5 of count one of the information:
'He failed to disclose to the said Melbourne P. King the fact that he was in the process of purchasing other automobiles at the time he was purchasing the said 1962 Oldsmobile, twodoor coach, motor number 622M83439.'
Both of the said allegations are material as to the defendant's motive, intent, scheme, plan or system in doing an act. C.L.1948, § 768.27 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.1050):
'In any criminal case where the defendant's motive, intent, the absence of, mistake or accident on his part, or ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ford
...accompanied by additional false representation may justify conviction under the false pretenses statute. See, e.g., People v. Vida, 2 Mich.App. 409, 140 N.W.2d 559 (1966), aff'd 381 Mich. 595, 166 N.W.2d 465 (1969), and People v. Niver, 7 Mich.App. 652, 152 N.W.2d 714 Since this case involv......
-
People v. Jory
...may form the basis for a false pretense prosecution. See People v. Schultz, supra, 210 Mich. at 301-302, 178 N.W. 89; People v. Vida, 2 Mich.App. 409, 140 N.W.2d 559 (1966). See also People v. Taurianen, 102 Mich.App. 17, 300 N.W.2d 720 Michigan cases involving fraud, the civil cousin of th......
-
People v. Peach, Docket No. 101684
...his conviction. This Court agreed. This Court noted the rule discussed in Sanford, supra. This Court then looked to People v. Vida, 2 Mich.App. 409, 140 N.W.2d 559 (1966), aff'd 381 Mich. 595, 166 N.W.2d 465 (1969), and People v. Niver, 7 Mich.App. 652, 152 N.W.2d 714 (1967). Both Vida and ......
-
People v. Chappelle
...if accompanied by additional false representation, justify conviction under the false pretenses statute (see People v. Vida [2 Mich.App. 409, 140 N.W.2d 559 (1966) ], supra), we hold that the instant facts preclude prosecution under that statute." Id., 87 Mich.App. 304, 274 N.W.2d 48. (Emph......