Whether former A.R.S. § 13-320.01 required the State to prove that the victim intended to transfer title or ownership of his money to the defendant.
Holding
No. The statute did not require proof that the victim intended to pass title to the money; proof that Moses knowingly and intentionally obtained money through a fraudulent scheme or artifice was sufficient.
Reasoning
Moses argued that the victim intended only to entrust his money temporarily as a display of good faith, not to give Moses ownership of it. Under the common-law offense of false pretenses, courts in some jurisdictions required proof that the victim intended to transfer title or whatever property interest the victim possessed, rather than merely surrender possession.
The court rejected the premise that § 13-320.01 simply codified the common-law crime of false pretenses. Although the statute criminalized obtaining money or property through false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, its language did not include a title-transfer requirement.
Instead, the court recognized that the Arizona provision was derived from the federal mail-fraud statute and was enacted in 1976 to reach a broad range of fraudulent conduct. That broader statutory design did not confine liability to transactions in which the victim meant to convey ownership.
The evidence showed that Moses used a planned deception to induce the victim to place his money in the handkerchief, then secretly substituted a different handkerchief containing paper. This was sufficient evidence that Moses knowingly and intentionally obtained the victim’s money pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud.