People v. Cage
1981 Mich. LEXIS 240, 410 Mich. 401, 301 N.W.2d 819 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of false pretenses must be predicated upon a misrepresentation of a past or existing fact, and cannot be based on a misrepresentation of a present intent concerning a future act or promise.
Facts:
- The defendant, Cage, went to a Lincoln-Mercury car dealership in Ypsilanti.
- Cage told a salesman that he wanted to test drive a used car.
- He represented that he would purchase the car if he liked it after the test drive and after having it inspected at a service station.
- In reality, Cage admitted he had no intention of buying the car when he made these statements.
- Cage's actual intent was to gain possession of the vehicle so he could convert it to his own use.
- Based on Cage's representations, the salesman gave him possession of the car for the purported test drive.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Cage, pled guilty to the charge of obtaining property by false pretenses in Washtenaw Circuit Court, the trial court.
- Cage appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, the intermediate appellate court, arguing the factual basis for his plea was insufficient.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, adopting a rule from a Texas case holding that a false promise made 'ab initio' could form the basis for false pretenses.
- Cage then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, the state's 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 misrepresentation of a present intent to perform a future act constitute a 'false pretense' under Michigan's false pretenses statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A misrepresentation of a present intent to perform a future act does not constitute a 'false pretense' under Michigan law. The court held that the crime of false pretenses, as established by statute and long-standing precedent, must be based on a misrepresentation concerning a past or present fact. The court reviewed Michigan case law, including People v. Morrison, which established that a promise relating to future conduct is insufficient for a false pretenses conviction. While acknowledging a modern trend in other jurisdictions to treat a false promise as a misrepresentation of an existing mental state, the court adhered to the majority rule and Michigan precedent. The court reasoned that changing this well-established interpretation would be tantamount to creating a crime retroactively, and any expansion of the statute to include 'promissory fraud' must be undertaken by the legislature, not the judiciary.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Michigan's adherence to the traditional, majority rule for the crime of false pretenses, creating a clear distinction between a misrepresentation of fact and a false promise. It highlights the principle of judicial restraint, with the court deferring to the legislature to expand the scope of criminal statutes. This case establishes a clear precedent in Michigan that differentiates the state's law from a growing minority of jurisdictions that have broadened the definition of false pretenses to include misrepresentations of present intent, thereby limiting the statute's application in cases of 'promissory fraud'.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Cage