State v. Thompson
402 P.2d 243, 1965 Ore. LEXIS 522, 240 Or. 468 (1965)
Rule of Law:
A defendant who obtains possession of property by fraud, but not legal title, under circumstances where the seller retains title as security (e.g., through a conditional sales contract), is guilty of larceny by trick, not obtaining property by false pretenses.
Facts:
- On April 18, 1962, James Dale Thompson, using the alias W. D. Thompson, purported to purchase a new automobile from a dealer.
- Thompson tendered a worthless check for $450 to the dealer.
- Thompson executed a conditional sales contract for the remaining balance of the vehicle's price.
- The dealer gave Thompson possession of the new automobile.
- Thompson subsequently made no payments on the conditional sales contract.
- On April 18, 1962, Thompson moved from Baker, Oregon, to Boise, Idaho.
- On April 23, 1962, Thompson moved from Boise, Idaho, to Las Vegas, Nevada, where he resided thereafter.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 20, 1962, James Dale Thompson was indicted by a grand jury for the crime of larceny by trick.
- On April 12, 1964, Thompson was extradited from Nevada to Oregon to answer the charge.
- On April 13, 1964, Thompson was arraigned.
- Thompson filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing the state failed to bring the case to trial within a reasonable time, which the trial court denied.
- Thompson's trial was initially set for May 11, 1964, and then postponed to May 27, 1964, at his request.
- On May 25, 1964, Thompson requested an additional postponement, which the trial court refused.
- During a recess, the complaining witness accused Thompson and one of his witnesses of being liars in a corridor where the jury room door was open; Thompson moved for a mistrial, but the trial court denied the motion after questioning the jurors, who stated they had not overheard the remarks.
- At the conclusion of the evidence, Thompson moved for a judgment of acquittal, contending the evidence only supported a charge of obtaining property by false pretenses and not larceny, which the trial court denied.
- Thompson was convicted of larceny by trick by the trial court.
- Thompson appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Oregon.
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 who obtains possession of an automobile from a dealer using a worthless check and a conditional sales contract, under which the dealer retains legal title as security, commit larceny by trick or obtaining property by false pretenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Holman, J.
Yes, a defendant commits larceny by trick when obtaining possession of property by fraud under a conditional sales contract where the seller retains legal title as security, as the seller did not intend to part with title. The court distinguished larceny by trick from obtaining property by false pretenses based on whether the victim intended to part with possession only (larceny by trick) or with both possession and title (false pretenses). Citing Lilly v. Gladden and 32 Am Jur, Larceny, § 7, the court emphasized that the prosecuting witness (dealer) retained legal title for the legitimate purpose of security under the conditional sales contract. A key test is whether the offender could confer good title upon another by sale and delivery of the property; since legal title was retained by the complaining witness, the defendant could not, thus confirming that only possession, not title, passed. The court also rejected Thompson's other claims of error: the denial of his motion to dismiss for failure to bring the case to trial within a reasonable time was proper because Thompson was continuously absent from the state. The denial of his motion for a postponement of his trial was not an abuse of discretion as his stated reasons (reimbursement, car theft, character witnesses) were either irrelevant or unsupported by efforts to secure witness availability. Finally, the denial of a mistrial motion, based on the complaining witness's remarks near the jury room, was appropriate because all jurors denied having overheard the comments.
Concurring - Denecke, J.
While concurring with the majority's decision to affirm the conviction, Justice Denecke highlighted the need for a comprehensive theft statute. He expressed concern that Oregon's criminal laws regarding property taking are outdated, being patterned after English laws from 200 years ago. He noted that these antiquated laws force courts to make "tenuous distinctions" to uphold convictions, even when juries have clearly found defendants guilty of criminal conduct. This sentiment points to the difficulties judges face when applying old statutes to modern criminal behaviors and the desirability of legislative reform for clarity and consistency.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between larceny by trick and obtaining property by false pretenses in Oregon, particularly within the context of conditional sales contracts. It reinforces the critical importance of the victim's intent regarding the transfer of title, not just possession, as the defining element. The ruling provides a clear test for distinguishing these crimes, which is crucial for prosecutors and defense attorneys alike. Furthermore, Justice Denecke's concurring opinion highlights a broader systemic issue within criminal law, advocating for legislative modernization of theft statutes to reduce reliance on archaic and complex common law distinctions, suggesting that even while upholding convictions, the judiciary acknowledges the strain of such legal frameworks.
