People v. Randono
1973 Cal. App. LEXIS 974, 108 Cal. Rptr. 326, 32 Cal. App. 3d 164 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An implied promise to pay for goods, created by the conduct of ordering them in the ordinary course of business, constitutes a 'false pretense' for the crime of theft by false pretenses if the defendant harbored a secret intention not to pay at the time of the order.
Facts:
- During 1968 and 1969, defendant Randono and his partner, Charles Dreyer, operated two businesses: a restaurant called Feliciano’s and a motel called the Saddleback Inn.
- The Saddleback Inn was in severe financial distress, with loan payments approximately 15 months delinquent.
- Facing inevitable bankruptcy for the Inn, Randono and Dreyer agreed to a plan to order about $20,000 worth of liquor for the Saddleback Inn with no intention of paying the distributors.
- Between July 15 and July 25, 1969, Randono ordered liquor valued at $20,968.32 from eight different distributors, which was delivered to the Saddleback Inn.
- After delivery, the liquor was moved from the Saddleback Inn to Feliciano's.
- At Randono's direction, the manager of Feliciano’s, Alexander Torbitt, built a false wall in a hallway to conceal the large quantity of stored liquor.
- Shortly thereafter, on July 31, a court-appointed receiver took control of the Saddleback Inn.
- Randono also removed a large quantity of furniture from the Saddleback Inn to his apartment over the following weekend.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendant Randono and Charles Dreyer were indicted in a trial court on eleven counts of grand theft and one count of attempted grand theft.
- Defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment was granted as to the attempt charge but denied for the grand theft charges.
- Defendant waived a jury, and after a bench trial, the trial court found him guilty of 10 counts of grand theft.
- The trial court suspended the sentence and granted probation.
- Defendant Randono (appellant) appealed the judgment (the probation order) to the California Court of Appeal.
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 person's conduct of ordering goods in the ordinary course of business, while secretly intending not to pay for them, constitute theft by false pretenses based on an implied misrepresentation of intent to pay?
Opinions:
Majority - Kerrigan, J.
Yes, a person's conduct of ordering goods while secretly intending not to pay constitutes theft by false pretenses. The false pretense does not need to be an express verbal statement; it can be implied from conduct. In the ordinary course of business, the act of ordering goods creates an implied promise to pay for them. A promise made without the intention of performing it is a false representation under the theft statute. The distributors' reliance on this implied promise can be inferred from their delivery of the goods, and the defendant's fraudulent intent can be inferred from his actions, such as concealing the property after receipt, which was corroborated by independent witness testimony.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying that the 'false pretense' element of theft does not require an explicit, verbal misrepresentation. The court solidified the legal doctrine that ordinary commercial conduct, such as placing an order, carries an implied representation of an intent to pay. This decision broadens the scope of theft by false pretenses to cover fraudulent commercial schemes where the deception is non-verbal, making it easier to prosecute individuals who exploit commercial norms for criminal gain. It affirms that the crux of the offense is the fraudulent intent at the moment the transaction is initiated, regardless of how that intent is manifested.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Randono