Barker v. State
599 P.2d 1349, 1979 Wyo. LEXIS 451 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A specific statute criminalizing the writing of insufficient-funds checks does not impliedly repeal a more general and serious false-pretenses statute. A defendant can be prosecuted under the false-pretenses statute if they obtain property by using a bad check as part of a larger deceptive scheme that goes beyond the mere representation that the check is good.
Facts:
- On April 25, 1978, Kenneth L. Barker opened a checking account at the First Wyoming Bank of Rawlins.
- At the same time, Barker directed the Rawlins bank to execute a 'customer's draft' to wire transfer $30,000 from a Montana bank to his new account.
- Barker falsely represented to the Rawlins bank that he had sufficient funds in the Montana bank to cover this draft.
- In reality, Barker had no current account at the Montana bank.
- The following day, Barker cashed a $500 check against his new, unfunded account at the Rawlins bank.
- The Rawlins bank cashed the check before verifying that the wire transfer had been completed.
- The Montana bank subsequently returned the 'customer's draft' unpaid, leaving the Rawlins account without funds to cover the $500 check.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Wyoming charged Kenneth L. Barker with obtaining property by false pretenses under § 6-3-106, W.S.1977.
- Barker was convicted in the trial court.
- Barker, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the enactment of a specific statute criminalizing the writing of insufficient-funds checks (§ 6-3-110) impliedly repeal the more general false-pretenses statute (§ 6-3-106) when property is obtained through a bad check as part of a fraudulent scheme?
Opinions:
Majority - Rose, Justice
No, the insufficient-funds statute does not repeal the false-pretenses statute by implication. The two statutes govern different categories of criminal conduct because they require proof of distinct elements. The crime of false pretenses always requires that property actually be obtained, whereas the insufficient-funds statute does not; it criminalizes the mere issuance of a bad check with fraudulent intent or to pay an obligation. Furthermore, where a defendant's deceit extends beyond the simple implied representation that a check is good, prosecution under the more serious false-pretenses statute is appropriate. In this case, Barker's actions constituted an entire deceitful scheme involving a fraudulent wire transfer, not merely passing a bad check, which justifies the charge of obtaining property by false pretenses.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the relationship between specific and general criminal statutes, affirming prosecutorial discretion in charging decisions. It establishes that a defendant cannot use a specific, lesser statute as a shield against prosecution for a more complex and serious crime when their conduct satisfies the elements of both. The ruling prevents the bad-check statute from becoming a loophole for offenders who engage in elaborate fraudulent schemes that happen to involve the use of a worthless check, thereby preserving the strength of general theft and fraud laws.
