People v. Churchill
417 N.Y.S.2d 221, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 1998, 47 N.Y.2d 151 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for larceny by false promise, the prosecution must prove to a moral certainty that the defendant had a fraudulent intent at the time the promise was made, and this intent cannot be inferred solely from the defendant's failure to perform the contract.
Facts:
- Norman Churchill, a contractor with over 20 years of experience in trades but no experience running a business, started a home improvement company.
- Churchill successfully completed his first two minor contracts.
- Churchill entered into a contract with Hazel Hild to repave two driveways for $1,200, for which he received the full contract price upfront.
- He then contracted with Robert Van Horn to remodel an attic for $3,400, receiving a $2,400 down payment.
- Shortly after, he contracted with Doris Vicki to blacktop a driveway and pour a garage floor for $2,600, receiving a $2,100 down payment.
- In all three instances (Hild, Van Horn, and Vicki), Churchill performed some work, such as renting and delivering equipment, purchasing supplies, grading the sites, and starting construction.
- Churchill failed to complete the work for Hild, Van Horn, and Vicki, prompting complaints.
- Van Horn terminated his contract due to the slow progress, and Vicki initiated a civil suit against Churchill.
Procedural Posture:
- The District Attorney secured a four-count indictment against Churchill for grand larceny in the third degree.
- Following a trial in a state trial court, a jury found Churchill guilty of larceny by false promise on three of the four counts (Hild, Van Horn, and Vicki contracts).
- Churchill appealed his conviction to the Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the judgment.
- Churchill was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, 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 the evidence showing that a contractor accepted down payments for three contracts, performed some initial work, but ultimately failed to complete the jobs, establish to a moral certainty that he intended not to perform at the time he entered the contracts, as required for a conviction of larceny by false promise?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Cooke
No. The evidence does not establish to a moral certainty that the defendant intended not to perform at the time he made the promises. The crime of larceny by false promise requires a higher standard of proof than a mere breach of contract to avoid criminalizing ordinary business failures. The statute requires evidence that is 'wholly inconsistent with innocent intent' and excludes 'to a moral certainty every hypothesis except that of the defendant’s intention or belief that the promise would not be performed.' Here, the defendant's conduct is as consistent with being an inexperienced and incompetent businessman as it is with criminal intent. The fact that he purchased materials, delivered equipment to the job sites, and commenced work on all three projects creates an inference that he intended to perform but was simply unable to manage the business. The evidence is ambiguous and fails to meet the high statutory burden of proof required for a larceny by false promise conviction.
Analysis:
This case is significant for drawing a sharp line between criminal larceny by false promise and a civil breach of contract. It strongly reinforces the high burden of proof—the 'moral certainty' standard—that the prosecution must meet to prove the defendant's intent at the inception of the agreement. The decision serves to protect inexperienced or even incompetent business owners from criminal prosecution for mere business failure, ensuring that the criminal justice system is not used as a tool for debt collection or retribution in what are essentially civil disputes. Future prosecutions for this crime will require much more direct or circumstantial evidence of a preconceived fraudulent scheme, rather than just relying on a pattern of non-performance.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Churchill