Summary 2006 WY 113

Summary of Decision issued September 11, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library for assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Trevino v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 113

Docket Number: 05-93

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, the Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Leda M. Pojman, Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for felony obtaining property by false pretenses. Whether the district court erred when it admitted Rule 404(b) evidence which was not relevant to the crime charged.

Holding: Appellant was convicted by a jury of one count of obtaining property by false pretenses in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-3-407(a)(i). Appellant went to purchase a truck for his house moving business with the assistance of his girlfriend, Sharon Keeves who represented herself as Michelle Trevino, his daughter during and after the sale. The purchase price of the truck was $9,000 which was paid with two trade-ins and a check for $6,000 drawn on the moving business account. By the next business day, a stop payment order had been placed on the check. No problems were reported with the truck and a check was never received by the seller of the truck.
Standard of Review: The Court assesses whether all the evidence presented is adequate to form the basis for an inference of guilt beyond reasonable doubt to be drawn by a finder of fact when that evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Claims of error in the admission of evidence are within the sound discretion of the trial court. Absent an abuse of discretion, the Court will not disturb the trial court’s determination. The burden is on the defendant to establish such abuse.
Issue I: Appellant’s insufficiency of the evidence argument is focused on whether there was intent to defraud. Intent to defraud is an essential element of the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses. The Court has said that there is sufficient evidence that the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses has been committed rather than a violation of the insufficient funds statute where (1) the accused actually obtains property by writing a bad check, and (2) the false representation is more than a simple express or implied statement that the check is good, and (3) all of the other elements of the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses are met. The Court reviewed the undisputed facts established by the record. The false representations made by Keeves at Appellant’s behest during the sale and the subsequent phone call later that day, along with those made by Appellant himself regarding the payment for the truck, are sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Barker that there be more than simply an express or implied representation that the check was good. The evidence was also sufficient to establish intent to defraud. The Court again noted the false representations made by Appellant and Keeves. They also noted that Appellant’s behavior was not what would be expected from a person who had been sold a “lemon.”
Issue II: The district court admitted uncharged misconduct evidence from the vice president and bookkeeper of Appellant’s business. Appellant alleges that the district court incorrectly concluded that the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by the prejudicial nature of it. The crime of obtaining property by false pretenses is a specific intent crime in Wyoming. The district court admitted the evidence for the purpose of establishing that Appellant had knowledge of his financial condition, i.e., that his conduct was not simply the result of a mistake regarding the state of his banking account. The Court saw no basis for finding that the district court’s balancing of the probative value versus the prejudicial potential of the evidence was an abuse of discretion in light of the purpose for which it was admitted.

Appellant’s conviction and sentence were affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the order for the court.

Link to the case: http://tinyurl.com/okbjt .