Caseflicks

Wyoming Supreme Court • 1979

Barker v. State

599 P.2d 1349 | 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 451

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a bad-check statute does not shield a defendant from a false-pretenses felony when the defendant actually obtains property through a broader deceptive scheme.

Background

Kenneth Barker opened a checking account at the First Wyoming Bank of Rawlins in April 1978. At the same time, he had the bank prepare a customer's draft directing a Montana bank to wire $30,000 to his new Rawlins account, representing that he had sufficient funds at the Montana bank. He in fact had no current account there.

The next day, Barker returned to the Rawlins bank and cashed a $500 check drawn on his new account. The bank honored the check before confirming that the promised wire transfer had arrived. The Montana bank later returned the customer's draft unpaid, leaving Barker's Rawlins account without funds.

Barker was convicted under Wyoming's false-pretenses statute, § 6-3-106, which made it a felony to obtain property by false pretenses when the value exceeded $25. He conceded that the State proved the elements of that offense. On appeal, however, he argued that the later-enacted insufficient-funds-check statute, § 6-3-110, a misdemeanor provision, implicitly repealed the false-pretenses statute as applied to conduct involving a bad check. The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Wyoming's later-enacted insufficient-funds-check statute implicitly repealed the earlier false-pretenses statute for a defendant who obtained property through a bad check.

Holding

No. The insufficient-funds-check statute did not repeal the false-pretenses statute by implication, and Barker could be convicted of false pretenses.

Reasoning

Repeals by implication are not warranted merely because two statutes can apply to some of the same conduct. The Court compared their required elements and concluded that they govern distinct categories of wrongdoing. False pretenses always requires that the defendant actually obtain property through deceit, while the insufficient-funds-check statute does not.

The insufficient-funds-check statute criminalizes both issuing a bad check with intent to defraud by obtaining property and issuing one to pay an existing obligation. Under the first branch, the offense is complete upon issuance with the required fraudulent intent; it does not require that the defendant actually receive property. Under the second branch, a person may violate the statute by using a bad check to pay a preexisting debt, even though no property is obtained as a result of the check.

Because actual acquisition of property is an essential element of false pretenses but not of the bad-check offense, the statutes are not identical and do not irreconcilably conflict. Other courts had likewise permitted prosecution for a more serious theft-type offense when a bad check resulted in the actual acquisition of property and the applicable bad-check statute did not require that result.

Barker's fraud also went beyond the ordinary implied representation that a check is good. He falsely represented that he had funds in a Montana bank and arranged a purported $30,000 wire transfer to create the appearance that his new Rawlins account would be funded. That additional deception supported treatment of the scheme as false pretenses rather than merely as the misdemeanor offense of issuing an insufficient-funds check.

The Court therefore held that false pretenses may be proved when a defendant obtains property by writing a bad check, provided that the defendant actually obtains property, makes a false representation beyond the simple express or implied assurance that the check will be honored, and the State proves all other elements of false pretenses. Those conditions were met here.