People v. Henninger

California Court of Appeal Oct 15, 1912 No. Crim. No. 397.Published

Before: Kerrigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an indictment for obtaining money by false pretenses is sufficient if it alleges the defendant made false representations with the intent to defraud, regardless of whether the victim failed to verify public records or whether the subject of the representation had independent value.

Issues

Whether an indictment for obtaining money by false pretenses must reference the underlying debt secured by a mortgage to state a public offense.
Whether a victim's failure to examine public records regarding a mortgage lien precludes a criminal conviction for false pretenses.
Whether the false pretenses must be such as would deceive a person of ordinary understanding.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is not essential to the commission of the crime defined by section 532 of the Penal Code that the false pretense should be made concerning some property or thing of value.”

“The essence of the crime lies in obtaining the money or property by false pretenses, with intent to defraud”

“It is not essential to a conviction that the pretenses must have been such as would probably deceive a person of ordinary understanding”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County and from orders denying motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial. John' Ellsworth, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

KERRIGAN, J.

The defendant was found guilty of obtaining money by false representations and pretenses. He was sentenced to imprisonment for the term of three years in the state prison. The appeal is from the judgment and from orders denying defendant’s motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial.

[81]

The indictment charges the defendant with having obtained one thousand dollars in money from Domenico Lavagetto on the second day of March, 1910, by falsely representing that he was the owner and holder of a certain mortgage on real property, which mortgage he unlawfully and feloniously “pretended and represented to said Domenico Lavagetto . . . constituted then and there a first lien and a first encumbrance on the real property . . . described, and was then and there the only lien and the only encumbrance on said property.” The indictment then proceeds to set forth three respects in which those representations as to the condition of the property in respect of encumbrances were false. There were several prior liens on the property, but Domenico Lavagetto, says the indictment, believed' the representations and, depending upon them, purchased the mortgage from the defendant and paid him therefor the sum of one thousand dollars.

The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment on the following grounds: “First, that the indictment was not found or indorsed as provided by the Penal Code. Second, that the names of the witnesses examined by the grand jury are not inserted at the foot of the indictment. Third, a person and persons were permitted to be present during the session of the grand jury when the charge embraced in the indictment was under consideration, other than persons permitted by section 925 of the Penal Code, ’ ’—and assigns as error the court’s refusal to do so.

Taking up these grounds of the motion to dismiss in their order, there is no merit in the first one. The indictment was indorsed, “A true bill, Henry N. McDonald, Foreman of the grand jury.” This indorsement was in accord with section 940 of the Penal Code, which provides the manner in which an indictment must be found and indorsed.

(People

Lawrence,

People v. Henninger

AI Brief

Synopsis

KERRIGAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief