Commonwealth v. Johnson
312 Pa. 140, 89 A.L.R. 333, 167 A. 344 (1933)
Rule of Law:
The crime of attempt to obtain money by false pretenses is committed when an offender, with the requisite intent, performs an overt act toward obtaining the property by false pretenses, even if the intended victim is not actually deceived or if completing the full crime is factually impossible due to circumstances unknown to the offender.
Facts:
- Drexler, a county detective, and another individual approached the defendant, a licensed physician, falsely representing that they had a sister who was failing in health.
- The defendant told Drexler to write the fictitious sister's name on a piece of paper, which the defendant then placed on an apparent electrical instrument and rubbed.
- The defendant claimed to diagnose the fictitious sister's ailments, stating she suffered from sarcoma, a blood clot on the brain, beef worms, and anemia, while also claiming her gall duct was in good condition, without ever seeing the patient.
- The defendant offered treatment for the supposed sister at a fee of $65 a month (or $41.60 if financially unable) for 9-12 months, asserting he had unseen patients globally who were being cured by his treatments.
- Drexler and his ally returned a few days later, agreed to the $65 treatment, and paid the defendant $25 in marked bills as a down payment, promising the remainder later.
- Investigation revealed that the instrument in the defendant’s office, used for the apparent diagnosis, was not wired to any electric current.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in an indictment with attempting to obtain money by false pretenses.
- The defendant was convicted and sentenced by the court of quarter sessions (trial court).
- The defendant appealed the conviction to the Superior Court (intermediate appellate court).
- The Superior Court arrested judgment against the defendant and discharged him.
- The Commonwealth (appellant) appealed the Superior Court's decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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 crime of attempting to obtain money by false pretenses occur when the prosecutor knows that the pretenses are false, or when the defendant receives a partial payment for the intended larger sum?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Schaefer
Yes, the crime of attempting to obtain money by false pretenses is committed even when the prosecutor knows the pretenses are false, and receiving a part of the money sought does not negate the attempt to obtain a larger sum. The Court reasoned that an attempt requires a specific intent to commit the crime and a direct, ineffectual overt act toward its commission, falling short of completion. The absence of actual deception on the victim's part or a factual impossibility (such as an empty pocket for a pickpocket) does not preclude a conviction for attempt, provided the means used were appropriate and the impediment was unknown to the offender. This principle emphasizes that the law punishes the perpetrator's criminal intent and overt actions, not merely the success of the fraud. The court distinguished this scenario as a factual impossibility, not a legal one, asserting that the failure to deceive the intended victim is an extrinsic cause that does not excuse the attempt. Moreover, the Court reiterated that the law of false pretenses protects the simple and gullible, not just the shrewd, and a pretense does not need to be such as would deceive a person of ordinary understanding. Receiving a partial payment does not complete the crime if the perpetrator's overall purpose was to obtain a greater, ongoing sum, leaving the attempt for the larger amount still actionable.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Maxey
No, the Commonwealth did not make out a case of criminal attempt because the defendant’s preposterous statements, made to a detective who knew they were false, did not constitute a 'substantial overt act' required for an attempt. Justice Maxey argued that American criminal law punishes substantial overt acts resulting from criminal intent, not merely states of mind or 'imagining' a crime, citing historical precedents against constructive treason. He contended that a mere unsworn, unbelieved, and therefore harmless lie does not rise to the level of a 'substantial overt act' that takes the defendant 'a single step nearer the consummation of his imagined crime.' He distinguished 'pickpocket cases' by asserting that putting one's hand into another's pocket is a substantial personal trespass and an unlawful overt act, unlike a mere unbelieved lie. Furthermore, Justice Maxey posited that if the completed crime of false pretense requires the victim to believe the false representations, then an attempt to commit that crime, where the victim did not believe them, cannot be sustained as a matter of law. He also pointed out that if the defendant did commit a crime, it was the completed crime of obtaining $25 by false pretenses, making an 'attempt' charge a legal paradox, as the defendant theoretically 'accomplished' whatever crime he intended regarding the $25.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant for clarifying the distinction between factual and legal impossibility in attempt crimes, particularly for false pretenses. It establishes that an attempt conviction can stand even when the victim is not deceived or the complete crime is impossible due to circumstances unknown to the perpetrator. This broadens the scope of criminal liability for attempts, focusing on the perpetrator's intent and overt actions rather than the victim's susceptibility or the ultimate success of the scheme. Future cases involving undercover operations or scenarios where the 'victim' is aware of the fraud will likely rely on this precedent to secure attempt convictions, reinforcing the idea that criminal intent coupled with a direct step toward the crime is sufficient for punishment, regardless of the ultimate outcome due to external factors.
