State v. Delmotte, 18457
| Decision Date | 14 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 18457,18457 |
| Citation | 665 P.2d 1314 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Michael Alfonso DELMOTTE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Kenneth R. Brown, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.
David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Robert N. Parrish, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
This is an appeal from jury convictions for writing bad checks in violation of U.C.A., 1953, § 76-6-505. The subject checks (three in number) were issued and dishonored between August and November, 1980. The defendant, a landscaper in Park City, was placed on probation after having been sentenced to the indeterminate term provided by law.
The jury heard the following facts in support of the verdict. From the latter months in 1978 through the early months of 1981, defendant had a checking account with First Security Bank. He was told by a bank official that the bank would not continue to honor his bad checks. Defendant was otherwise made aware of his overdrafts by his receipt of monthly statements, which were admitted in evidence over objection. The defendant admitted writing the checks, but testified he believed he had sufficient funds in his account to cover them. He claimed that at the time of the last and largest check he is charged with writing without sufficient funds, he had a third person's check in his possession, which he intended to deposit. The reason he did not deposit the check was because he learned it also would not be honored. Defendant conceded receiving the monthly statements showing the overdraft status of his bank account, and admitted that he knew he was overdrawn at the time he wrote the third check, with which he was charged in the information. His testimony with respect to that check was self-contradictory.
On appeal, defendant urges that the trial court erred in refusing to give his requested instruction No. 10. He contends that one's belief that he has sufficient funds in the bank is a defense to the charge, and that he was entitled to have his theory of the case presented to the jury. 1 "Knowledge" of the account's depletion is a material element in the offense charged. At trial, defendant admitted that he knew his account was overdrawn when he issued the third check. In any event, the defendant made no objection nor did he except to the court's refusal to give the instruction, and consequently the issue is not now before us. 2
Defendant next contends that the court abused its discretion in admitting the monthly bank statements sent to defendant showing overdrafts. Defendant asserts such abuse of discretion under Rules 45 and 55, Utah Rules of Evidence. Under Rule 55, the bank statements are admissible to show "knowledge" of the overdrafts, an integral and material part of the offense charged. The trial court substantially so instructed the jury in instruction No. 5, as being the reason for such admission in evidence. This Court, in a recent case, dispositively affirmed such admissibility in a case like this, 3 when it quoted the following language:
Any pertinent fact which throws light upon ... the accused's guilt or innocence of the crime ... charged, is admissible. Such fact is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Larsen
...attempts to engraft a judicially created intent requirement upon the plain language of a criminal statute. E.g., State v. Delmotte, 665 P.2d 1314, 1315 (Utah 1983) (holding offense of writing bad check does not require intent to defraud). Perhaps more on point, other states have rejected at......
-
Bott v. Osburn
...deliberately was to remove’ ” the requirement. See Sindt v. Retirement Bd., 2007 UT 16, ¶ 13, 157 P.3d 797 (quoting State v. Delmotte, 665 P.2d 1314, 1315 (Utah 1983)). When the legislature undertakes to amend a statute, it indicates a legislative intent “to change the law.” 1A Norman J. Si......
-
State v. Nieberger
...can mean nothing but that the legislature's purpose deliberately was to remove [risk] as an element of the offense." State v. Delmotte, 665 P.2d 1314, 1315 (Utah 1983). Second, the pre-2002 statute applied to any form of exposure that resulted in a risk of bodily injury to a protected perso......
-
State v. Coando
...stake).4 Intent to defraud is not a necessary element of the bad check offense under section 76-5-505 as now written. State v. Delmotte, 665 P.2d 1314, 1315 (Utah 1983). ...