State v. Jenson
Decision Date | 27 August 1929 |
Docket Number | 4769 |
Citation | 74 Utah 527,280 P. 1046 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. JENSON |
Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County Ephraim Hanson, Judge.
David Jenson was convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses and he appeals.
AFFIRMED.
Henderson & Johnson, of Ogden, for appellant.
Geo. P Parker, Atty. Gen., and Byron D. Anderson, Deputy Atty. Gen for the State.
EPHRAIM HANSON, J., being disqualified, did not participate.
The defendant was convicted of obtaining three stock certificates representing stock in the Tintic Standard Mining Company from said company by false pretenses, under the first count of an information which reads as follows:
A second count charged in the information charging grand larceny was dismissed on the motion of the state after the evidence was all in but before the case was submitted to the jury.
The first count was drawn under section 8344, Comp. Laws Utah 1917, which reads as follows:
"Every person who knowingly and designedly, by false or fraudulent representations or pretenses, shall obtain from any other person any chose in action, money, goods, wares, chattels, effects, or other valuable thing, with intent to cheat or defraud any person of the same, if the value of the property so obtained does not exceed $ 50, is punishable as in cases of petit larceny, and when the property so obtained is of the value of more than $ 50, the person so offending shall be punishable as in cases of grand larceny."
The defendant demurred to the information and assigned as grounds for the demurrer the following:
A motion to quash the information was also made on the same grounds. The demurrer and motion were overruled.
We shall first consider the defendant's contention "that the facts stated in the first count of said information do not constitute a public offense." It is alleged that the defendant obtained the three stock certificates. Certificates representing shares of stock in a corporation are choses in action; consequently the element of section 8344, that defendant obtained choses in action, is sufficiently alleged. The first count of the information also alleged that the property obtained was of the value of more than $ 50, to wit, of the value of $ 4,650, so that it is sufficient in that regard to show what degree of crime defendant was charged with. The intent to cheat and defraud the Tintic Standard Mining Company is alleged in the words of the statute which, under ordinary circumstances, is all that can be set out, because intent must generally be proved by inferences. The representation alleged to have been made is that the defendant represented that he had authority from Mrs. West to transfer the stock represented by certificate No. 370, which was issued in the name of Mrs. West and indorsed in blank by her, to himself as trustee. It is further alleged that such representation was false and untrue and further that the defendant knew that it was false and untrue. This constitutes the element of section 8344, requiring the false and fraudulent representations or pretenses to be set out. The count further alleges that the Tintic Standard Mining Company believed said representation that the defendant had authority to transfer the stock to himself as trustee was true, and that it acted upon said representation and did transfer the said stock to the said defendant as trustee, and that it would not have done so had it not been for the representation so made by said defendant. This last combination of allegations sufficiently sets up the obtaining of the chose in action by false representations. The first count, therefore, alleges the representation, its falsity, that it resulted in the obtaining of the chose, and that the representation was made with the intent to cheat and defraud, and that the defendant effected the transaction knowingly and designedly. Every element required to set up a proper charge of obtaining a chose by false pretenses is contained in the first count. The demurrer was therefore properly overruled.
The information was also demurred to on the ground that the second count did not state a public offense. Since that count was withdrawn from consideration by the jury, no harm could have come from overruling the demurrer on that ground.
It is contended that the demurrer should have been sustained because two public offenses were improperly united in the information in contravention of section 8834, Comp. Laws Utah 1917 which reads as follows:
"The information or indictment must charge but one offense, but the same offense may be set forth in different forms under different counts; and when the offense may be committed by the use of different means, the means may be alleged in the alternative in the same count; provided, that an information or indictment for larceny may contain also a count for obtaining money by false pretenses, a count for embezzlement, and a count for receiving or buying stolen property, knowing it to be stolen; that an information or indictment for forgery may contain a count for uttering a forged instrument, knowing it to be a forgery; that an information or indictment for robbery may contain a count for larceny; that an information or indictment for burglary may contain a count for house-breaking and one for larceny, and an information or indictment for house-breaking may contain a count for larceny, that an information or indictment for rape, or assault with intent to commit rape, or carnal knowledge of a female under eighteen years of age, or attempt to commit the crime of carnal knowledge of a female under eighteen years of age, or crime against nature upon any person, or attempt to commit the crime against nature upon any person may contain also a count for indecent assault."
An examination of the second count shows that it alleges grand larceny by a trick, artifice, or device. It is the old common-law development of larceny, wherein it was held that where one obtained possession of property by a trick or device, consent to the possession was vitiated because of the fraud, and the possession treated as unlawful from the beginning. The trick, artifice, or device by means of which carrying away from the possession of the Tintic Standard Mining Company was accomplished is not alleged in the second count in the same language as is used in the count setting up the obtaining of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gorham
... ... Consequently, if the ... first count had never appeared in the information, then all ... the evidence introduced would have been introduced in support ... of the second count, and would have been material ... In the ... case of State v. Jenson , 74 Utah 527, 280 ... P. 1046, 1049, two counts were stated; one for false ... pretenses, and the other for larceny by trick. The second ... count was withdrawn from the consideration of the jury after ... all the evidence was in. It was stated in that opinion as ... "It ... is ... ...
- Loveday v. State, 34
-
State v. Green
... ... Adler , 140 ... N.Y. 331, 35 N.E. 644; People v. Dole , 122 ... Cal. 486, 55 P. 581, 68 Am. St. Rep. 50; Zachary v ... State , 97 Ark. 176, 133 S.W. 811; ... Bullington v. State , 123 Neb. 432, 243 N.W ... 273; 12 R. C. L. 159; 26 C. J. 926. See, also, State ... v. Jenson , 74 Utah 527, 280 P. 1046, where there was ... one count for obtaining property by false pretense, and one ... for grand larceny ... It is ... contended that, notwithstanding the tenor of the check as set ... out in the two counts is the same, there being no allegation ... that the ... ...
-
State v. Lebeau
...“qualify as criminal intent for the offenses in this case.” ¶ 22 Intent is usually established by inference. See State v. Jenson, 74 Utah 527, 280 P. 1046, 1048 (1929). See also State v. Colwell, 2000 UT 8, ¶ 43, 994 P.2d 177 (“We have held that intent to commit a crime may be inferred from......