People v. Baird

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Bateman

    175 Cal.App.2d 69 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 8 times

    [2] The elements of grand theft on the theory of obtaining property by false pretenses are: 1. an intent to defraud; 2. an actual fraud committed; 3. the use of false pretenses to perpetrate the fraud; and 4. reliance on the fraudulent representations in parting with the property. ( People v. Baird, 135 Cal.App.2d 109, 114 [ 286 P.2d 832].) [3] A promise made with an existing intent not to perform may constitute a false pretense within the grand theft statute.

  2. People v. Caruso

    176 Cal.App.2d 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1959)   Cited 15 times

    [5] The elements of the crime of grand theft on the theory of obtaining money by false pretenses are: (1) an intent to defraud; (2) an actual fraud committed; (3) the use of false pretenses to perpetrate the fraud; and (4) reliance upon the fraudulent representations in parting with money or other property. ( People v. Frankfort, 114 Cal.App.2d 680, 697 [ 251 P.2d 401]; People v. Nesseth, 127 Cal.App.2d 712, 715 [ 274 P.2d 479]; People v. Baird, 135 Cal.App.2d 109, 114 [ 286 P.2d 832].) [6] A single false material misrepresentation is sufficient to constitute the offense, if the other essential elements are proved.

  3. People v. Schmitt

    155 Cal.App.2d 87 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 31 times
    In People v. Schmitt (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 87 [ 317 P.2d 673], such oral representations were deemed adequate to support charges against a chiropractor of violation of former Health and Safety Code section 26286.5 and Business and Professions Code section 17500 (Id., at p. 102.)

    [18] Whether the representations were made honestly or with an intent to deceive was likewise a question of fact to be resolved by the jury from all the circumstances in evidence. ( People v. Henderson, 79 Cal.App.2d 94, 118 [ 179 P.2d 406]; People v. Baird, 135 Cal.App.2d 109, 114 [ 286 P.2d 832].) Defendant vigorously maintained at the trial and now argues that he did not intend to defraud his patients and that he was practicing electronic medicine in good faith.

  4. People v. Massey

    151 Cal.App.2d 623 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 42 times

    [23] The elements of the crime of grand theft on this theory of obtaining money or property by false pretenses are: (1) an intent to defraud; (2) an actual fraud committed; (3) the use of false pretenses to perpetrate the fraud; and (4) reliance upon the fraudulent representations in parting with the money or other property. ( People v. Jones, supra, p. 377; People v. Baird, 135 Cal.App.2d 109, 114 [ 286 P.2d 832].) It would unduly prolong this already lengthy opinion to here restate the evidentiary features of this case.

  5. People v. Borbon

    146 Cal.App.2d 315 (Cal. Ct. App. 1956)   Cited 20 times
    In People v. Borbon, 146 Cal.App.2d 315 [ 303 P.2d 560], cited by the defendant, the evidence the court rejected was photostats made from the documents obtained as the result of an unlawful search and seizure.

    From the observation of appellant, dressed as he was, being a Mexican of his age, fitting the description of the suspect, riding in a car fairly well described, and observing the five receipts on the front seat of the car which were taken from the victim, the arrest of the suspects and search of them and the car were justified. ( People v. Jiminez, 143 Cal.App.2d 671, 673 [ 300 P.2d 68]; People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 650 [ 290 P.2d 531]; People v. Martin, 46 Cal.2d 106 [ 293 P.2d 52]; Hatfield v. State (Tex.Crim. App.) 276 S.W.2d 829, 830; People v. Brown, 354 Ill. 480 [ 188 N.E. 529, 530]; People v. Baird, 135 Cal.App.2d 109 [ 286 P.2d 832]; Pen. Code, § 836, subd. 3.) [2] Appellant next complains because the officers also took a bone-handled pocket knife from each of defendants and they were received in evidence.

  6. Bright v. Sheriff

    90 Nev. 168 (Nev. 1974)   Cited 14 times
    Finding that a misrepresentation of omission need not be direct

    In State v. Aiken, 254 P.2d 264 (Kan. 1953), a conviction was sustained where an insurance solicitor represented to insureds that the annual premium for a certain policy was $68.50; he collected that amount and kept the difference between such amount and the actual premium of $33. A conviction was upheld in Thompson v. State, 19 S.E.2d 777 (Ga. 1942), where defendant, an inspector in the city water department altered the consumer's water meter in order to reduce the water bill, and then received, from the consumer, one-half the amount saved. People v. Baird, 286 P.2d 832 (Cal.App. 1955), upheld conviction of a defendant who induced the prosecuting witness to enter into a joint venture for the purchase of surplus machine gun cases; defendant produced a purported copy of a bid form showing the cost to be 12 1/2¢ each. In fact the cost was only 5 3/4¢ each. A conviction was also affirmed in People v. Carpenter, 297 P.2d 498 (Cal.App. 1956), where a theater employee, who was supposed to draw a ticket at random, palmed the ticket of a confederate and pretended it to be the one drawn from a container.

  7. People v. Neal

    6 Cal. Rptr. 118 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)

    The elements of grand theft by false pretenses are: (1) An intent to defraud; (2) an actual fraud perpetrated; (3) use of false pretenses to perpetrate the fraud; and (4) reliance upon the fraudulent representations in parting with the money or other property. People v. Frankfort, 114 Cal.App.2d 680, 697, 251 P.2d 401; People v. Baird, 135 Cal.App.2d 109, 114, 286 P.2d 832. In considering the sufficiency of the evidence we cannot reweigh the evidence but will decide only whether upon the face of the evidence it can be held that sufficient facts could not have been found by the jury to warrant the finding of guilt.