AG19880321 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

G.S. 14-100. Instead, plaintiff alleges, the evidence indicated that plaintiff merely committed a misdeameanor under G.S. 14-106 or 14-107. Hence, plaintiff argues, the magistrate violated his constitutional rights by issuing a felony warrant for his arrest. In order to establish the offense of obtaining property by false pretenses, the government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following essential elements: (1) a false representation of a subsisting fact of a future fulfillment or event, (2) which is calculated and intended to deceive, (3) which does in fact deceive, and (4) ~y w~ich one person obtains or attempts to Go obtain value from another. State v. Freeman, 308 N.C. 502, 511, 302 S.E.2d 779, 784 (1983) (quoting State v. Cronin, 299 N.C. 229, 242, 262 S.E.2d 277, 286 (1980)). Furthermore, "Freeman illustrates that the passing of a worthless check in the criminal scheme does'not preclude an indictment for this offense." State v. Hopkins, 70 N.C.App. 530, __, 320 S.E.2d 409, 411 (1984)(emphasis added). Hence, factual situations arise in which individuals may be charged with either passing a worthless check (in violation of G.S. 14-106) or obtaining property by false pretenses (in violation of G.S. 14-100). The importance is that the former offense is only a misdemeanor while the latter is a felony. Plaintiff relies almost exclusively on the Hopkins case noted above. See id. In that case, the North Carolina Court of Appeals stated, "Prosecution under [G.S. 14-100] is improper only where there is no additiol]al misrepresentation beyond the presentation.of a'worthless check." Id. at , 320 S.E.2d at 411. Hence, "a wrongdoer is not insulated from greater criminal liability because a worthless check is involved." Id. If an additional misrepresentation is made, defendant may be convicted of the felony of obtaining money by false pretenses under G.S. 14-100. 2