He was instrumental in creating a fictional business, the purpose of which was to belie unwary merchants into believing that the payroll checks drawn on that business, with an account at a reputable bank, were guaranteed. "[T]he crime of obtaining property by means of a false pretense may be committed when one obtains goods . . . by a wilful misrepresentation of his identity . . .," because "[t]he decision of a merchant to extend credit ordinarily turns upon his evaluation of the financial status and history of the applicant." State v. Tesenair, 35 N.C. App. 531, 535, 241 S.E.2d 877, 880 (1978). In Tesenair, defendant introduced himself as Boyce Tesenair and, after checking, the merchant learned from the Credit Bureau that Tesenair had a good credit rating.
We conclude that defendant has not shown that the amendment to the indictment prejudicedhis defense. See State v. Tesenair, 35 N.C.App. 531, 534, 241 S.E.2d 877, 879 (1978) (holding defendant “could not possibly have been prejudiced” by amendment to indictment where defendant's own testimony showed that “he was completely aware of the nature of the charge against him” and his defense did not rely on challenging the factual propositions changed by amendment). The trial court, accordingly, did not err in allowing the amendment in this case.
This contention is without merit in that this Court has said that intent to repay is no defense to a charge of obtaining property by false pretenses. State v. Tesenair, 35 N.C. App. 531, 241 S.E.2d 877 (1978). Defendant also contends that the trial court erred in allowing the State to comment on defendant's wife's failure to take the stand.
The jury could find that this was a false representation on which Mr. Hill relied in delivering the candy. See State v. Freeman, 308 N.C. 502, 302 S.E.2d 779 (1983) and State v. Tesenair, 35 N.C. App. 531, 241 S.E.2d 877 (1978). The defendant next argues that the testimony of Captain Warren should have been excluded because of a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights as defined in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966).
"[T]he crime of obtaining property by means of a false pretense may be committed when one obtains goods . . . by wilful misrepresentation of his identity . . ." because "[t]he decision of a merchant to extend credit ordinarily turns upon his evaluation of the financial status and history of the applicant." State v. Tesenair, 35 N.C. App. 531, 535, 241 S.E.2d 877, 880 (1978). See also State v. Kilgore, 65 N.C. App. 331, 308 S.E.2d 876 (1983) (defendant's conviction under G.S. 14-100 upheld because he improperly portrayed himself as an agent after his authorization had been terminated).
The crime of obtaining property by false pretenses may be committed when a defendant obtains goods by a willful misrepresentation of his identity. State v. Tesenair, 35 N.C. App. 531, 241 S.E.2d 877 (1978); State v. Clontz, 4 N.C. App. 667, 167 S.E.2d 520 (1969). Moreover, not only does the evidence show that defendant misrepresented his identity, it shows that defendant told Mr. Pruden, the manager of the office supply store, that he was a student at Halifax Community College; that he wanted to rent a typewriter for approximately an hour in order to type a resume; and that he was an expert typist, having been a typist in the service.