Brown v. Commonwealth
1983 Ky. LEXIS 298, 656 S.W.2d 727 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To secure a conviction for theft by deception, the prosecution must prove the victim relied on the defendant's misrepresentation; however, reliance on any one of multiple material misrepresentations made during the transaction is sufficient to satisfy this element.
Facts:
- In December 1978, law enforcement initiated an undercover sting operation to investigate auto transmission shops in Jefferson County.
- A state police mechanic took a working 1968 Ford LTD, marked its transmission parts for identification, and then created a minor, easily reversible malfunction by adjusting a screw.
- The car was taken to Powers Transmission Shop, where manager Thomas Brown told an undercover detective posing as the owner that the transmission bands were broken and the entire unit had to be disassembled.
- The next day, Brown informed the detective that it would cost $372.82 to repair the transmission, and the detective authorized the repair work.
- Four days later, the detective paid Brown $372.82 for the supposed repairs.
- Upon re-examination at the police garage, the mechanic discovered that Brown had not repaired the original transmission but had instead replaced it with a different one.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas M. Brown was convicted by a jury in Jefferson Circuit Court (trial court) of theft by deception.
- Brown appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment and Brown's conviction.
- Brown then sought and was granted discretionary review by the Supreme Court of Kentucky (highest court).
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 a conviction for theft by deception require proof that the victim relied on the defendant's misrepresentation, and if so, can the conviction be upheld where the victim did not rely on the initial misrepresentation but did rely on a subsequent one?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam (Opinion of the Court)
Yes, reliance is a necessary element of theft by deception, and a conviction can be upheld if the victim relied on any one of the defendant's material misrepresentations. Although the governing statute, KRS 514.040, is silent on the issue of reliance, the court reaffirms its prior holding in Rowland v. Commonwealth that reliance is an essential element of the offense. In this case, Brown made two distinct false impressions: first, that the transmission was defective and needed extensive repairs, and second, that he would perform those repairs on the original transmission. While the detective did not rely on the first misrepresentation (as he knew the transmission was not defective), he did rely on the second promise that the transmission would be repaired. Because Brown instead substituted the transmission and accepted payment based on the false promise to repair, the element of reliance was met, and the conviction is affirmed.
Concurring - Gant, J.
Yes, the conviction should be affirmed, but it should be because reliance is not a necessary element of the offense. The plain language of the statute, KRS 514.040, does not include reliance as an element. The statute requires only proof beyond a reasonable doubt of three elements: (1) obtaining property of another, (2) by deception, and (3) with intent to deprive him thereof. The crime is complete when the perpetrator obtains the property through deception with the requisite intent. The statute's focus is on the state of mind of the criminal, not the victim, and the court should not read a reliance requirement into the law where the legislature did not include one.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the judicially-created reliance requirement for theft by deception in Kentucky, even under a statute that does not explicitly mention it. The case's primary significance lies in its nuanced application of this requirement, establishing that reliance on any single misrepresentation within a series of deceptive acts is sufficient for a conviction. This holding is particularly impactful for undercover sting operations, as it allows for prosecution even when the undercover officer is aware of the initial fraudulent premise, provided they rely on a subsequent false promise made by the defendant.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. Commonwealth