State v. Robington
75 A.2d 394, 1950 Conn. LEXIS 196, 137 Conn. 140 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of obtaining money by false pretenses requires a misrepresentation of a past or existing fact, not merely a promise of future action. The crime of larceny by trick is committed when a person obtains possession, but not title, of property through deception with the fraudulent intent to permanently deprive the owner of it.
Facts:
- Margaret Robington obtained $600 in cash and $3000 in property from I. Chauncey Lewis.
- Robington represented to Lewis that she would use the money and property to purchase a Cadillac automobile for him in the future.
- In a separate transaction, Robington approached Bonded Auto Sales, Inc. seeking to acquire a new Chrysler sedan.
- As Bonded did not have one, its president took Robington to Par Motor Sales, Inc., which did.
- Par Motor Sales gave Robington possession of a Chrysler based on her assurance that she would either return the car or pay $3,015 for it on the following Monday.
- Robington did not return the car or pay for it as promised.
- Instead, she used the car for her own purposes for over two months and then moved it to New Jersey, concealing it.
- The court found that Robington never had any intention of paying for the Chrysler.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Connecticut charged Margaret Robington in an information with, among other things, obtaining money under false pretenses (Count 1) and larceny (Count 3).
- Following a trial in a court of first instance, Robington was found guilty on both counts.
- The defendant, Margaret Robington, appealed the judgment of guilt to the state's highest 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:
First, does a defendant's promise regarding future conduct constitute a criminal false pretense? Second, is a defendant guilty of larceny by trick when they obtain possession of property through fraud, if the owner did not intend to pass title to the property at the time of delivery?
Opinions:
Majority - O’Sullivan, J.
No as to the first question; Yes as to the second. A mere promise to do an act in the future, even if the promisor has no present intention of keeping it, is not a false pretense under the statute, which requires a misrepresentation of a past or existing fact. However, a defendant is guilty of larceny by trick when they fraudulently obtain possession of property with the intent to convert it, provided the owner did not intend to part with title. For the first count, Robington's promise to Lewis to buy a car was a statement about future conduct, not a misrepresentation of a past or existing fact, and therefore cannot sustain a conviction for obtaining money under false pretenses. For the third count, the crime was larceny by trick. The key element is that Par Motor Sales did not intend to transfer title to the Chrysler, only possession. The delivery was conditional upon Robington returning the vehicle or paying for it. Since Robington obtained possession through deception (a promise she never intended to keep) and with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property, all elements of larceny by trick were established.
Analysis:
This case provides a classic illustration of the distinction between the crimes of false pretenses and larceny by trick. The ruling reinforces the traditional common law requirement that false pretenses must be based on a misrepresentation of a past or existing fact, thereby excluding fraudulent promises of future conduct from the scope of the statute. For larceny by trick, the decision underscores that the owner's intent is the dispositive factor; the critical inquiry is whether the victim intended to part with title or merely possession. This distinction remains a foundational concept in the law of theft, guiding prosecutors in how to charge defendants in cases involving fraudulent transactions.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Robington