![]() ![]() knowingly and designedly with the intent to cheat and defraud obtain UNITED STATES CURRENCY from CASH NOW PAWN by means of a false pretense which was calculated to deceive and did deceive. he jurors for the State upon their oath present that. The false pretense consisted of the following: BY PAWNING AN ACER LAPTOP, A VIZIO TELEVISION AND A COMPUTER MONITOR AS HIS OWN PROPERTY TO SELL, when in fact the property had been stolen from and the defendant was not authorized to sell the property. The jurors for the State upon their oath present that. The indictment at issue stated in relevant part: I. ![]() MOSTAFAVI Opinion of the Court Defendant was charged by indictment with, inter alia, two counts of obtaining property by false pretenses. Later, defendant conveyed the stolen items to several local stores, including a pawnshop. Defendant obtained, inter alia, an Acer laptop, a Vizio television, a computer monitor, and jewelry, all belonging to the homeowner. Defendant visited the home, then later returned with the house sitter, pulled his car into the garage, closed the door, and loaded various items into his vehicle before leaving the premises. She confided in defendant, and defendant requested to go to the victim’s home. Earlier in the week, the house sitter stole certain items from the home and conveyed them to a local pawnshop in exchange for cash to pay for drugs. The next day, however, the house sitter confessed that she and defendant had stolen the items from the home. That same day, the house sitter and police contacted the homeowner to tell her about the alleged break-in. On 10 July 2015, the house sitter contacted police to report that during the time she was housesitting someone had broken into the home. The State presented evidence at trial showing that in July 2015, a homeowner hired a family friend to housesit for her while she was on vacation. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. Furthermore, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence of defendant’s false representation that he owned the stolen property he conveyed. As such, the indictment is facially valid it gives defendant reasonable notice of the charges against him and enables him to prepare his defense. MOSTAFAVI Opinion of the Court and names the items conveyed to obtain the money. The indictment here sufficiently identifies the crime charged because it describes the property obtained as “United States Currency” STATE V. An indictment for obtaining property by false pretenses must describe the property obtained in sufficient detail to identify the transaction by which defendant obtained money. In this case we decide whether an indictment charging defendant with obtaining property by false pretenses is fatally flawed because it described the property obtained as “United States Currency” and whether the State presented sufficient evidence of defendant’s false representation of ownership to support his conviction for those charges. Kiziah, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant. Heard in the Supreme Court on 9 January 2018. Cromer in Superior Court, Forsyth County. ![]() _, 802 S.E.2d 508 (2017), affirming in part and vacating in part judgments entered on 9 June 2016 by Judge Anderson D. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, _ N.C. ![]() SEID MICHAEL MOSTAFAVI Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. 199A17 Filed 6 April 2018 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA No. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |