State v. Barr

• Decision Date: 23 September 1941
• Docket Number: 6914
• Citation: 117 P.2d 282,63 Idaho 59
• Parties: STATE, Respondent, v. WALTER BARR, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

117 P.2d 282

63 Idaho 59

STATE, Respondent, v. WALTER BARR, Appellant

No. 6914

Supreme Court of Idaho

September 23, 1941

CRIMINAL LAW - COMPLAINT, SUFFICIENCY OF - AMENDMENTS-FALSE PRETENSES-EVIDENCE-VENUE.

1. A justice court complaint charging misdemeanor need not set forth facts constituting offense with all particularity required in indictments and informations. (I. C. A. secs 19-1309 to 19-1311, 19-4001.)

2. A justice court complaint, alleging that defendant made and signed claim for partial unemployment benefits under Unemployment Compensation Law on specified date at named city and defrauded state of specified sum by inducing Unemployment Compensation Division of Industrial Accident Board to pay such claim, sufficiently charged offense of obtaining money under false pretenses, so that conviction thereunder could be pleaded as bar to another charge of same offense. (I. C. A sec. 19-4001.)

3. Where complaint, filed in justice court, was amply sufficient, amendment thereof in district court on appeal was unnecessary and immaterial, and where amendment made no change in nature of charge against defendant, it was unnecessary to arraign him thereafter or permit him to plead to amended complaint. (I. C. A. sec. 19-4001.)

4. In trial for obtaining money under false pretenses uncontradicted documentary evidence, consisting of false written claim for unemployment compensation and "Continued Claim and payment Order," signed by defendant, and state warrant, drawn in his favor for amount obtained and later cashed by him, together with one witness' testimony, held sufficient to support conviction. (I. C. A. sec. 19-2016.)

5. The essence of crime of obtaining money by false pretenses is intent to defraud, and "false pretense" is fraudulent representation of existing or past fact by one who knows it to be untrue, adapted to induce person to whom made to part with something of value.

6. Venue and corpus delicti, like other facts, may be established by direct testimony, circumstantial evidence, or both.

7. The Idaho Supreme Court will take judicial notice that city of Pocatello is located in Bannock county, Idaho.

8. In trial for obtaining money under false pretenses, evidence that defendant made false claim for unemployment compensation at Pocatello office of Unemployment Compensation Division of Industrial Accident Board, that he stated on face of such claim and his continued claim for benefits, also made at such office, that his and his employer's addresses were in such city, and that warrant for payment of claim stated such address of defendant, was sufficient to establish commission of offense in Bannock county, in district court of which defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for Bannock County. Hon. Isaac McDougall, Judge.

Walter Barr was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses and appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Anderson, Bowen & Anderson, for Appellant.

It is not sufficient merely to aver in the indictment, information or complaint that the accused obtained the property by false pretenses; the pleader must go further and not only set out the pretenses, but set it out with such particularity as to enable the court to determine whether it is such a pretense as comes within the statute, and as to apprise the accused of the charge against him. (25 C. J. 623.)

The court had no authority to proceed with the trial after having amended the complaint in a matter of substance, and in fact, prior to that time it had no validity whatever, without a new arraignment and without giving the defendant time to plead thereto; and after this amendment was made, then the prosecution was barred by the statute of limitations. (14 Am. Jur. 941, Sec. 253; McFadin vs. State, 72 S.W. 172; 44 Tex. Crim. 471; State vs. Hoffman, 70 Mo.App. 271; State vs. DeWolfe, 74 P. 1084; 29 Mont. 415.)

The venue of a criminal offense is a material allegation and must be laid in the information and proven; where it is not proven, judgment of conviction will be reversed on appeal, and the cause remanded for a new trial. (State vs. Siepert, 38 Idaho 20; 225 P. 135.)

Bert H. Miller, Attorney General, and T. M. Robertson, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

A criminal complaint filed in a Justice's Court need only set forth the offense charged with such particulars of time, place, person and property as to enable the defendant to understand distinctly the character of the offense complained of, to answer to the complaint, and to plead a judgment of acquittal or conviction based thereon in bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same criminal act charged therein. (I. C. A., Sec. 19-4001; State v. Griffin 55 Idaho 60, 37 P.2d 402; State v. Johnson, 54 Idaho 431, 32 P.2d 1023.)

The fact that the party was induced to part with its property by reason of the defendant's false representation is a question of fact to be determined by the jury upon all the evidence in the case. It is not necessary that there be any direct testimony on this point, and when the false pretense and the parting with property are proved, the inference of inducement is established and the burden of proof falls upon the accused to show that the inference of inducement thus established was not in fact true. (Redgrave v. Hurd, L. R. 20 Ch. D. (Eng. 1 C. A. (also cited in 61 A. L. R. at page 545); Commonwealth v. Daniels, (Penn.) 2 Parsons Equity Cases 332 (2d Ed. page 338); People v. Steffner, 67 Cal.App. 1, 227 P. 690, People v. Hong Quin Moon, 92 Cal. 441, 27 P. 1096; People v. Rabe, 202 Cal. 409, 261 P. 303.)

The evidence is sufficient to establish the venue of this action in Bannock County, Idaho. (Shaw v. Martin, 20 Idaho 168 at page 176; I. C. A., 16-101 (2) (3) (8); Matlock v. Citizen's National Bank of Salmon, 43 Idaho 214, 250 P. 648.)

HOLDEN, J. BUDGE, C.J., and GIVENS, MORGAN and AILSHIE, JJ., concur.

OPINION

HOLDEN, J.

Walter Barr was charged, tried and convicted in the Justice Court of Pocatello precinct, Bannock County, Idaho, of the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses and sentenced to imprisonment in the Bannock County jail for fifteen days and to pay a fine of $ 25.00 and costs. Upon appeal to the District Court for Bannock County he was again tried upon the same charge and convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of fifteen days, from which latter conviction he appeals to this court.

Not all of the many alleged errors assigned are deemed sufficiently important to merit discussion. Therefore, only those considered necessary to a determination of the appeal will be considered and determined.

Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, contending it does not sufficiently charge the commission of the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses. The complaint charged the commission of a misdemeanor as follows:

"That Walter Barr of Pocatello on or about the 31st day of January, 1939, at Pocatello in the County of Bannock and State of Idaho, then and there being, did then and there commit the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses in the following manner, to-wit: Having theretofore on the 20th day of December, 1938, filed an initial claim for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law of the State of Idaho, and said benefits having been determined to be $ 288.66, did, on said 31st day of January, 1939, knowingly, intentionally, fraudulently, wilfully and unlawfully sign a claim for benefits for partial unemployment under the Unemployment Compensation Law of the State of Idaho for the week ending January 30, 1939, and did then and there knowingly, intentionally, fraudulently, wilfully and unlawfully certify that during said week he had had odd job earnings of $ 6.00, for the purpose and with the intent to defraud the State of Idaho by inducing the Unemployment Compensation Division of the Industrial Accident Board of the State of Idaho to pay him benefits for partial unemployment during said week based on part-time earnings of $ 6.00; whereas the said defendant, in fact, earned wages in the sum of $ 18.00 during said week; that as a result of the false certification and because of the false representation made by the said defendant, the Unemployment Compensation Division of the Industrial Accident Board of the State of Idaho, believing said certification and representation to be true, did pay to the defendant in the County of Bannock the sum of $ 14.00 [amended in the district court by adding the following words: 'said money being the property of the Unemployment Compensation Fund of the State of Idaho'] as a benefit payment for partial unemployment during the week ending January 30, 1939, based upon part-time earnings of $ 6.00."

Whether the complaint, without the aid of the above quoted amendment, sufficiently charges the offense of obtaining money under false pretenses, depends upon whether it satisfies the requirements of Section 19-4001, I. C. A., which provides:

"All proceedings and actions before probate and justices' courts for a public offense of which such courts have jurisdiction must be commenced by complaint under oath, setting forth the offense charged with such particulars of time, place, person and property as to enable the defendant to understand distinctly the character of the offense complained of and to answer the complaint."

Appellant argues, in effect, that the complaint must set forth the facts constituting the offense with all the particularity required of indictments and informations. Substantially the same contention was made in State v. Griffith, 55 Idaho 60, 37 P.2d 402. In that case we held the provisions of Sections 19-1309, 19-1310 and 19-1311, I. C. A., were "not...