People v. Lorenzo
64 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 43, 135 Cal. Rptr. 337, 1976 Cal. App. LEXIS 2185 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for theft by false pretenses requires proof that the victim was actually deceived and relied on the defendant's fraudulent representation when parting with property. If the victim is aware of the fraud, the completed crime has not occurred, but the defendant may be guilty of an attempt.
Facts:
- A manager at a Von's market observed a customer, the defendant, switch the price tags on a pair of gloves to a lower price.
- The manager also witnessed the defendant switch the price tags on two chickens, replacing them with tags for lesser amounts.
- The defendant proceeded to a check-out counter, with the manager standing five to six feet away, and paid the incorrect, lower price for the items.
- The defendant had no conversation with the check-out clerk during the transaction.
- After the defendant left the store with the merchandise and entered the parking lot, the manager arrested him.
- The correct, higher-priced tags for the two purchased chickens were later found on two other chickens the defendant had handled but left behind in the store.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged with theft in violation of Penal Code section 484, subdivision (a).
- At a jury trial in the court of first instance, the jury was instructed solely on the theory of theft by false pretenses.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting the defendant of theft.
- The defendant appealed the judgment of conviction to the appellate 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 defendant commit the completed crime of theft by false pretenses when they switch price tags on merchandise, but the store's manager is aware of the deception and allows the transaction to proceed for the purpose of an arrest?
Opinions:
Majority - Cole, Acting P. J.
No. A defendant does not commit the completed crime of theft by false pretenses if the victim was not actually deceived by the fraudulent representation. The court reasoned that an essential element of theft by false pretenses is that the owner is induced to part with property in reliance on the defendant's false representation. Here, the store manager, as an agent of the victim Von's market, was aware of the price tag switch at all times. Because the agent's knowledge is imputed to the principal, the store was not actually deceived and did not rely on the defendant's conduct. The court also rejected the theory of larceny by trick on the same grounds, stating that reliance is a necessary element of that crime as well. However, because the defendant did everything necessary to complete the crime and was only stopped by the manager's awareness, the evidence fully supported a conviction for attempted theft, of which reliance is not an element. Accordingly, the court modified the judgment from theft to attempted theft.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical role of the 'reliance' element in crimes of false pretenses and larceny by trick. It establishes that when a victim is aware of a fraudulent scheme, such as through employee observation in a retail setting, the completed crime of theft cannot be proven due to the lack of actual deception. This decision guides prosecutors in similar observation-based arrest scenarios to charge for attempted theft rather than the consummated offense, affecting both charging strategies and sentencing. The ruling underscores the distinction between a defendant's criminal intent and the specific legal elements required to prove a completed crime.
