State v. Lamoreaux
| Decision Date | 18 April 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. A--101,A--101 |
| Citation | 80 A.2d 213,13 N.J.Super. 99 |
| Parties | STATE v. LAMOREAUX. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Walter S. Keown, Camden, argued the cause for appellant.
Benjamin Asbell, Camden, argued the cause for respondent (Mitchell H. Cohen, Camden, attorney).
Before Judges McGEEHAN, JAYNE and WM. J. BRENNAN, Jr.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, Jr., J.A.D.
The defendant, Lamoreaux, a house builder, seeks by this appeal to reverse his conviction in the Camden County Court upon an indictment charging him with having obtained $1,100 from one Sabo by false pretenses, contrary to R.S. 2:134--1, N.J.S.A.
Two of the rulings of the trial court present errors which make it plain that the judgment cannot stand.
In the first place, the State's proofs were insufficient to negative any of the pretenses charged in the indictment, and the trial court, upon Lamoreaux' request at the close of the State's case, ought to have granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal.
The indictment charged that Lamoreaux knowingly and designedly did falsely pretend to Sabo on different days between November 26, 1949, and January 28, 1950, that he would immediately commence construction of a house for Sabo on a certain lot and that he had sufficient finances, materials and labor available to do so.
False pretense has been familiar since 30 Geo. II, c. 24 from which our statute was largely drawn. The statute makes indictable certain frauds upon individuals which were not indictable by the common law. A false pretense under the statute is such a designed misrepresentation of an existing fact or condition as induces the party to whom it is made to part with his property. It must not be promissory in character but must be a representation of something which at the time is untrue. State v. Tomlin, 29 N.J.L. 13 (Sup.Ct.1860); 2 Wharton, Crim.Law (12th ed.1932), p. 1699. The statute has a broad reach, but it is intended to punish a crime and is not to be used as a means of enforcing civil liability. Its range is not so wide as to embrace every representation which has heretofore been understood as only creating civil liability. Cf. Robinson v. State, 53 N.J.L. 41, 20 A. 753 (Sup.Ct.1890). A misstatement of the state of one's mind is a misstatement of fact upon which an action in fraud and deceit may be predicated (Roberts v. James, 83 N.J.L. 492, 85 A. 244 (E. & A.1912)), but by virtually unanimous authority it is not a false pretense exposing one to criminal prosecution under 30 Geo. II, c. 24, and its American counterparts. See English and American cases collected in Wharton, supra, p. 1732. The alleged wilfully false representation charged to Lamoreaux in this indictment, that he 'would immediately commence construction,' therefore does not charge a crime.
The allegation that he knowingly misrepresented that he had sufficient finances, materials and labor to build the house does, however, charge designed misrepresentation of existing facts or conditions and allege the crime of false pretense under the statute.
The State was not bound to prove that each of the pretended facts as to finances, materials and labor was untrue. If a single false pretense coming within the statute is proved and appears to have been operative in inducing the defrauded party to part with his money, it is immaterial that other false pretenses laid in the indictment are not proved. State v. Haines, 92 N.J.L. 642, 106 A. 27 (E. & A.1918); Cunningham v. State, 61 N.J.L. 666, 40 A. 696 (E. & A.1898); State v. Appleby, 63 N.J.L. 526, 42 A. 847 (Sup.Ct.1899). The critical inquiry, then, is whether the State's proofs sustained the State's burden to show that Lamoreaux in fact lacked finances, materials or labor at the times he represented he had them.
The negative may be proved circumstantially and inferentially, but the evidence must point to a strong probability of the falsity of the pretense. Whart...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Zwillman
...to support an indictment for a violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:111--1. State v. Allen, 53 N.J. 250, 250 A.2d 12 (1969); State v. Lamoreaux, 13 N.J.Super. 99, 80 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1951). It may well be that Cortese was guilty of embezzlement from his employer but that does not prevent the State fro......
-
State v. Nagy
...v. Fay, 127 N.J.L. 77, 21 A.2d 607 (Sup.Ct.1941); State v. Rogers, 8 N.J.Super. 64, 73 A.2d 274 (App.Div.1950); State v. Lamoreaux, 13 N.J.Super. 99, 80 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1951). 'Inflexibly the law has set its face against the endeavor to fasten guilt upon him by proof of character or exper......
-
State v. Lamoreaux
...criminal intent, which testimony by reason of the lack of proof of the commission of the crime charged was inadmissible. 13 N.J.Super. 99, 80 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1951). In pursuance of our determination a mandate issued declaring the reversal of the judgment of conviction and directing in the......
-
State v. Muniz
...crimes "grounded in strong probability." State v. Trypuc, 53 N.J.Super. 6, 12, 146 A.2d 503 (App.Div.1958); State v. Lamoreaux, 13 N.J.Super. 99, 103, 80 A.2d 213 (App.Div.1951). What was stated about this subject in State v. Mayberry, supra, is particularly appropriate when applied to the ......