State v. Newsom, 83-75-III
| Decision Date | 04 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-75-III,83-75-III |
| Citation | 684 S.W.2d 647 |
| Parties | STATE of Tennessee, Appellee, v. Larry D. NEWSOM, Appellant. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals |
William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen., Jerry L. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, John C. Knowles, Asst. Dist. Atty. Gen., Sparta, for appellee.
John W. Price, Dyersburg, for appellant.
In a bench trial Larry D. Newsom was convicted of making and delivering a bad check, T.C.A. 39-3-301, in the amount of $1,000 and sentenced to a term of three years. On appeal he submits the facts fail to show the essential element of intent to defraud because (1) the check was given for payment on a preexisting debt and (2) the prosecutor had notice the check was bad because it was issued and delivered in a continuing business transaction in which appellant gave the prosecutor two other bad checks. We conclude the proof shows fraudulent intent and affirm the judgment.
The state's proof showed that Bob Sparkman was in the business of distributing tanning lotions and related products in Tennessee. Commencing May 11, 1979 and running through June 21, 1979 Sparkman sold products to appellant in the amount of $6,389.80 on which appellant paid $870.04 leaving a balance of $5,519.76. Appellant had given Sparkman a check for one invoice on May 11, 1979 for $1689.60 but had told Sparkman to hold the check which he did. He presented the check in August 1979, after the events out of which the prosecution arose, and the check was dishonored. No prosecution on this check occurred because it was given to be held by Sparkman in the first place.
On July 10, 1979 appellant bought more merchandise from Sparkman for $986.40 which was added to appellant's account. At the same time he received the merchandise he gave Sparkman two checks for $1,000 each for application on the preexisting debt. Sparkman would not have parted with the additional goods without receiving the checks.
One of the checks was dated about a week ahead because appellant represented he would not have enough money on deposit to take care of it until that time. Sparkman was to negotiate the check after its date. It appears he did present the check later as agreed but it came back unpaid. No prosecution occurred on this check.
The other check was dated July 10, 1979, the date the goods were delivered. Sparkman negotiated the check immediately and it was dishonored. The account on which it was drawn was closed. This is the check on which appellant was prosecuted. Appellant testified he told Sparkman the account was closed and to hold the check until the next week but the judge did not believe the testimony. It is apparent from Sparkman's testimony that he received no such information and relied on the check to be good.
The general rule is, where the statute specifies the obtaining of something of value as an element of the offense, the giving of a worthless check in payment of a preexisting debt is not a violation of the statute. Since the debt remains unpaid the maker of the check did not obtain anything of value from the payee and did not give the check with intent to defraud. 32 Am.Jur.2d, False Pretenses, Sec. 82.
Our bad check law formerly was Chapter 178 of the 1915 Acts of Assembly as codified and amended from time to time. It prohibited obtaining with fraudulent intent money or other property or credit by means of a worthless check. Our present law which originated in Chapter 322 of the 1967 Acts of Assembly is different in that it prohibits the making or delivering with fraudulent intent of a worthless check "for the purpose of obtaining money, services, or any article of value, or to obtain credit". However, the distinction between actually obtaining something of value by means of a worthless check and making or delivering a worthless check for the purpose of obtaining something of value is not significant, in our opinion, in the application of the general rule referred to. We think that under either statute if the worthless check is given in payment of a preexisting debt, nothing else appearing, there is no fraudulent intent.
However, our bad check law always has included credit as a right or property that may be the target of a worthless check. As already noted, our present law provides it is unlawful for a person with fraudulent intent to make or deliver a worthless check "to obtain credit". T.C.A. 39-3-301. In Tines v. State, Tenn.Cr.App., 553 S.W.2d 913 (1977), the defendant issued a worthless check for deposit in the account of a company called Tiny Auto Electric, Inc. The bank credited the account of the company with the amount of the check and paid the company's checks out of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Goren
...tit. 21, § 1541.1 [2002]), overruled on other grounds by Broadway v. State, 818 P.2d 1253 (Okla.Crim.App.1991); State v. Newsom, 684 S.W.2d 647, 649 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1984) (interpreting an earlier version of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-121[a][1] [2006]); Norman v. State, 170 Tex. Crim. 25, 26-27,......
-
State v. Norwood
...those services she was written the check, which then did not clear the bank." Citing Code section 39-14-121 and State v. Newsom, 684 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984), the defendant asserted that a check tendered as payment for a pre-existing debt did not fall within the purview of the bad......
-
State v. Desai
...but rather in the fraud through which credit may be procured or payment evaded." Id. at 484. Defendant relies on State v. Newsom, 684 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1984), in a circuitous argument against his theft of services conviction. First, Defendant argues that because he "utilized" the......
-
State v. Rudd, C
...examined many such decisions and believes that the synthesis of the law, and common sense, is that, as stated in State v. Newsom (Tenn.Crim.App.1984), 684 S.W.2d 647, 649, "if the worthless check is given in payment of a preexisting debt, nothing else appearing, there is no fraudulent A few......