Smith v. State
| Citation | 409 So.2d 927 |
| Decision Date | 27 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 378 |
| Parties | Gloria Jean SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles M. Law, Montgomery, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and William Dudley Motlow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The defendant pled guilty to an indictment charging false pretense in that the defendant fraudulently obtained aid to dependent children and food stamps "in an amount greater than that to which she was entitled." Alabama Code 1975, Section 13-3-90. The one year and one day sentence was suspended and the defendant placed on probation.
The issue in this case is whether or not a person who obtains welfare benefits by false pretenses may be prosecuted for obtaining money or property by false pretenses. The defendant contends that the criminal provisions of the welfare fraud statute preclude prosecution under the general criminal statute of false pretenses.
The crime of obtaining by false pretenses is a felony and is defined by statute.
"Any person who, by false pretense or token and with the intent to injure or defraud, obtains from another any money or other personal property shall, on conviction, be punished as if he had stolen it." Alabama Code 1975, Section 13-3-90.
The crime of "welfare fraud" is a misdemeanor.
"Any person who by means of a false statement knowing it to be false, or by wilful misrepresentation, impersonation or other fraudulent device obtains or attempts to obtain or aids or abets any person in obtaining a public assistance grant, surplus commodities or other benefits administered by the department of pensions and security to which such person is not entitled or a larger amount than that to which he is justly entitled, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500.00 and may be sentenced to hard labor for the county for not exceeding 12 months, or both." Alabama Code 1975, Section 38-4-7.
Both Section 13-3-90 and Section 38-4-7 were repealed by the new Criminal Code, effective January 1, 1980. See Table I of Title 13A.
It is apparent that each statute covers activities not covered by the other. The offense of false pretenses is only committed when money or personal property is actually obtained. The obtaining of services by false pretenses is a misdemeanor defined by a separate statute. Alabama Code 1975, Section 13-3-91. The false pretense must have operated as an inducement for the injured party to part with his goods or money. Ex parte Thaggard, 276 Ala. 117, 159 So.2d 820 (1964). Misleading conduct alone does not constitute a false pretense. Eaton v. State, 16 Ala.App. 405, 78 So. 321 (1918).
To be convicted of welfare fraud it is not necessary that one actually obtain anything by his false representation and the crime is complete even though the agency is not actually misled and does not rely on the misrepresentation. The statutory language "other benefits administered by the department" covers services as well as money and property. The crime of welfare fraud is defined to include a false statement or "other fraudulent device." Therefore, unlike the crime of false pretenses, a person may be criminally liable for mere conduct and course of dealing unaccompanied by the employment of a false representation of fact by word, symbol or token in obtaining welfare benefits. Eaton, supra.
However, where one obtains money or property from a welfare agency by false pretenses, both statutes may be violated. In this situation, a person may be prosecuted under either statute.
We find no indication that the legislature intended to punish all welfare frauds as misdemeanors. The title to Alabama Acts 1951, No. 703, p. 1211, in pertinent part only provides, "to provide penalty for false representation", giving no indication that the legislature intended Section 38-4-7 to be the exclusive criminal sanction for all welfare frauds irrespective as to the amount or type of property involved or whether or not anything was actually obtained by the false representation. This is not a situation where the legislature clearly intended to reduce the crime of falsely obtaining welfare benefits from a felony to a misdemeanor. Compare Miller v. State, 349 So.2d 129 (Ala.Cr.App.1977).
A majority of the states that have considered this question have reached a conclusion similar to the one we reach in this opinion. See Anno. 92 A.L.R.2d 421, Section 4 (1963).
The legislature may create two or more criminal offenses which may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Coker
...App. 1980); Crumpton v. State, 402 So. 2d 1081 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981); Perry v. State, 407 So. 2d 183 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981); Smith v. State, 409 So. 2d 927 (Ala. Crim. 1981); Motley v. State, 409 So. 2d 945 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981). ......
-
McMurphy v. State, 5 Div. 691
...64 So.2d 121 (1952). False pretense must have operated as an inducement for the injured party to part with goods or money. Smith v. State, 409 So.2d 927 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 409 So.2d 930 (Ala.1981). However, it was not necessary that the false pretense was the sole, exclusive or de......
-
Dowdell v. State, 7 Div. 341
...properly admitted the burglary conviction in question for the purposes of enhanced punishment in the case at bar. See Smith v. State, 409 So.2d 927 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), cert. denied, 409 So.2d 930 (Ala.1982), and authorities therein This court has carefully examined this record in light of ......
-
Ex parte Day
... ... 117, 159 So.2d 820 (1963), though it need not be the sole or exclusive cause for the loss. Franklin v. State, 44 Ala.App. 521, 214 So.2d 924 (1968). The fact that the victim was not diligent, but imprudent, will not negate his reliance if the ... "False pretense must have operated as an inducement for the injured party to part with goods or money. Smith v ... State, 409 So.2d 927 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 409 So.2d 930 (Ala.1981).[ 2 However, it was not necessary that the false pretense was ... ...