State v. Jarman
| Decision Date | 04 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 5409,5409 |
| Citation | 84 Nev. 187,438 P.2d 250 |
| Parties | STATE of Nevada, Appellant, v. Glenn JARMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Harvey Dickerson, Atty. Gen., Carson City, and Leonard P. Root, Dist. Atty., Hawthorne, for appellant.
Leonard E. Blaisdell, Hawthorne, for respondent.
Appellant State of Nevada, hereinafter referred to as 'the state' or the appellant, charges respondent Glenn Jarman, hereinafter referred to as 'Jarman' or the respondent, with issuing a check without sufficient funds, and appeals from an order of the lower court making permanent a writ of habeas corpus, dismissing the complaint and discharging the respondent from custody.
Jarman, a civilian employee of the Department of Navy, owed Big T Market, Inc., the sum of $130 for groceries previously purchased. The amount was carried by Big T Market, Inc., as an open account for two weeks prior to April 21, 1967, when Jarman gave Big T Market, Inc., a check for $130 in full payment of his grocery account. The check was drawn on the North Reno Branch of Nevada Bank of Commerce, Reno, Nevada, and was not honored by the bank because of insufficient funds in Jarman's account.
After the check was returned to Big T Market, Inc., the proprietors of the market contacted Jarman and urged him to redeem the check. On June 7, 1967, Garland R. Rowlett, one of the owners of Big T Market, Inc., caused a criminal complaint to be filed against Jarman, alleging violation of NRS 205.130(1). A preliminary hearing was held on July 6, 1967, at which time Jarman moved to quash the complaint and demurred to the complaint on the ground that it did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the laws of this state.
At the close of the preliminary hearing, Jarman moved for dismissal of the case upon the ground that the drawing of the check to pay a pre-existing debt did not amount to a criminal offense. In support of his position, respondent cited Hoyt v. Hoffman, 82 Nev. 270, 416 P.2d 232. The motions and demurrer of the respondent were denied and he was bound over for trial in the district court.
Immediately after the preliminary hearing, respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court. On July 7, 1967, the day after the preliminary hearing, the petition was heard and the learned judge found this case directly in point with the case of Hoyt v. Hoffman, supra, made the writ of habeas corpus permanent, dismissed the complaint and released respondent from custody.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in applying the case of Hoyt v. Hoffman, supra, to the facts in this case. The appellant's contention is without merit. We find that the case of Hoyt v. Hoffman, supra, is directly in point on the law and the facts in this case, and affirm the order of the trial court.
In Hoyt v. Hoffman, supra, this court said: Harris v. State of Florida, 123 So.2d 752 (Fla.App.1960); Blue Bonnet Creamery, Inc. v. Gulf Mills Association, 172 So.2d 133 (La.App.1965); Jackson v. State, 251 Miss. 529, 170 So.2d 438 (1965); 59 A.L.R.2d 1159.
In reaching its conclusion in Hoyt v. Hoffman, supra, this court said: 'In this case Hoyt did not receive a benefit as a result of making and delivering the check to his creditor, Kirn, nor was Kirn's position improved or damaged.' In the instant case we find that the position of Big T Market, Inc., was not damaged, but in fact improved, in a legal sense. Its pre-existing open account was converted to a written instrument for a definite admitted amount.
Furthermore, the moment when the limitations of actions began to run was advanced vanced to the 21st of April, 1967, and instead of a four year limitations of actions on the open account, the market gained the benefit of a six year limitations of actions. 1
The gravamen of the crime of issuing a check without sufficient funds is intent to defraud. To defraud means to deprive a person of property or interest, estate or right by fraud, deceit or artifice. Sterner v. Lehmanowsky, 173 Neb. 461, 113 N.W.2d 588 (1962); State v. Harris, 313 S.W.2d 664 (Mo.1958); Benedict v. State, 166 Neb. 295, 89 N.W.2d 82 (1958); People v. Griffith, 120 Cal.App.2d 873, 262 P.2d 355 (1953). In the case of State v. Vandenburg, 9 W.W.Harr. 498, 2 A.2d 916 (Del.1938), the court, adopting a definition from Webster's New Inter.Dict., held that: "To defraud' means 'to deprive of some right, interest or property by a deceitful device; to cheat; to overreach; * * *'.'
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sinclair, 148
...So.2d 692 (1949) (where a check was given after the defendant had completely removed and departed with some machinery); State v. Jarman, 84 Nev. 187, 438 P.2d 250 (1968) (where the check was given for a past-due grocery bill); Hoyt v. Hoffman, 82 Nev. 270, 416 P.2d 232 (1966) (where a check......
- Kitchin v. Mori
-
Cook v. State
...is that evidence does not exist in the record to establish reasonable or probable cause to hold an accused for trial. State v. Jarman, 84 Nev. 187, 438 P.2d 250 (1968); Azbill v. State, 84 Nev. 345, 440 P.2d 1014 (1968); Mathews v. Sheriff, 84 Nev. 649, 446 P.2d 651 (1968); State v. Wyatt, ......
-
Nguyen v. State
...the documents demonstrates that they were payable on demand, at the time of issuance. Nguyen further argues that, under State v. Jarman, 84 Nev. 187, 438 P.2d 250 (1968), he cannot be prosecuted under NRS 205.130(1). In Jarman, we held that this provision does not apply to checks issued to ......