Affirming the decision below in State v. Jones, 223 N.C. App. 487 (Nov. 20, 2012), the court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish identity theft. The case arose out of a scheme whereby one of the defendants, who worked at a hotel, obtained the four victim’s credit card information when they checked into the premises. The defendant argued the evidence was insufficient on his intent to fraudulently use the victim’s cards. However, the court found that based on evidence that the defendant had fraudulently used other individuals’ credit card numbers, a reasonable juror could infer that he possessed the four victim’s credit card numbers with the intent to fraudulently represent that he was those individuals for the purpose of making financial transactions in their names. The defendant argued further that the transactions involving other individuals’ credit cards actually negated the required intent because when he made them, he used false names that did not match the credit cards used. He continued, asserting that this negates the suggestion that he intended to represent himself as the person named on the cards. The court rejected that argument, stating: “We cannot conclude that the Legislature intended for individuals to escape criminal liability simply by stating or signing a name that differs from the cardholder’s name. Such a result would be absurd and contravene the manifest purpose of the Legislature to criminalize fraudulent use of identifying information.”

In an identity theft case, the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant "used" or "possessed" another person’s social security number to avoid legal consequences. After being detained and questioned for shoplifting, the defendant falsely gave the officer his name as Roy Lamar Ward and provided the officer with the name of an employer, date of birth, and possible address. The officer then obtained Ward's social security number, wrote it on the citation, and issued the citation to the defendant. The defendant neither signed the citation nor confirmed the listed social security number.

In this Cleveland County case, the defendant was convicted of forgery of an endorsement pursuant to G.S. 14-120, uttering a forged check pursuant to G.S. 14-120 and attaining habitual felon status pursuant to G.S. 14-7.1. (1) The defendant argued on appeal that the State failed to prove the falsity of the instrument. The Court of Appeals determined that the State presented substantial evidence to show that the defendant wrote and signed a check on the account of John McGinnis without McGinnis’s authority. The State’s evidence tended to show that the defendant wrote a check on McGinnis’s account weeks after his house and car were broken into. A driver’s license and phone number handwritten on the check were similar to defendant’s. The defendant falsely told the person to whom she wrote the check that McGinnis was her father and had given her permission to use the check. McGinnis was hospitalized when the check was written and had no children. Malcom Parker was the sole power of attorney for McGinnis and handled all of his financial matters.

(2) The trial court properly admitted a photocopy of the forged check pursuant to G.S. 8-97 to illustrate the testimony of the witness to whom the check had been provided. The Court found no indication that the photocopy was used as substantive evidence, and further concluded that the State put forth substantial evidence that the defendant had forged and uttered an instrument as defined by G.S. 14-119.

The evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant’s convictions for uttering a forged instrument and attempting to obtain property by false pretenses. Both offenses involved a fraudulent check. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the check was falsely made. An employee of the company that allegedly issued the check testified that she had in her possession a genuine check bearing the relevant check number at the time the defendant presented another check bearing the same number. The employee testified the defendant’s check bore a font that was “way off” and “really different” from the font used by the company in printing checks. She identified the company name on the defendant’s check but stated “it’s not our check.”

In this Wake County case, defendant appealed his convictions for six counts of obtaining property by false pretenses and six counts of felony obstruction of justice, arguing error in denying his motions to dismiss the charges. The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing the denial of the motion to dismiss the obtaining property by false pretenses charges, and vacating the convictions for obstruction of justice. 

Defendant was elected Granville County Sheriff in 2010, and between the years of 2013 and 2019, defendant reported that he had completed voluntary in-service training and firearm qualification classes. However, a 2019 investigation determined that defendant’s signatures on training class rosters were falsified. At trial, defendant admitted he did not complete the required trainings and submitted false records, testifying “he submitted the false records for ‘a personal reason’ and that he ‘wanted to get credit for it.’” Slip Op. at 3. 

The Court of Appeals first considered the obtaining property by false pretenses convictions, noting defendant’s argument that he did not submit the false records in an attempt to obtain a thing of value from another, an essential element of the charge. Instead, defendant argued “that he did not obtain anything because of his misrepresentation but only maintained possession of a certification obtained prior.” Id. at 5. The court considered whether renewal of his certification represented “obtaining property” for purposes of the applicable statute, concluding “that renewing a previously acquired law enforcement certification does not constitute obtaining property.” Id. at 6. Because defendant did not attempt to obtain property, the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss, and the court reversed.

Moving to the obstruction of justice charges, the court explained that it did not reach the sufficiency of the evidence issue for these charges because the indictments were facially invalid. The court looked back to State v. Coffey, 898 S.E.2d 359, 364, disc. review denied 901 S.E.2d 796 (2024), where the defendant in that case certified the current defendant’s falsified attendance and firearms records. Considering the indictment, the court held that “[i]t does not allege that [defendant’s] wrongful acts were done to subvert a potential investigation or legal proceeding . . . [t]he indictment therefore fails entirely to charge Defendant with a criminal offense.” Slip Op. at 11. Because the indictment failed to charge defendant with a criminal offense, the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and the court vacated the convictions. 

In this obtaining property by false pretenses case, there was sufficient evidence that the victim was a “person within this State” as the term is used in G.S. 14-100(a) as well as sufficient evidence of the value of the property at issue.  Addressing what it characterized as an issue of first impression, the court determined that even if it is an essential element of a violation of G.S. 14-100 that the victim of the offense by “a person within this State” as that phrase is used in the statute, an issue that the court did not decide, the element was satisfied in this case involving AT&T.  The defendant’s fraud scheme involved the resale of iPhones falsely obtained from AT&T, and the court reasoned that because the phones came from a store operated by AT&T located in North Carolina, AT&T was operating as “a person within this state” for purposes of the offense and the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The court went on to conclude that the State met its burden of proving that the value of the iPhones falsely obtained by the defendant was at least $100,000.  The court noted that North Carolina case law has defined the term “value” for purposes of obtaining property by false pretenses to be synonymous with “fair market value” and explained that evidence presented at trial showed that the actual retail value of the iPhones as calculated by the price AT&T paid to its supplier for the phones met or exceeded $100,000.  The court discussed State v. Kornegay and State v. Hines in the process of rejecting the defendant’s argument that the value issue should take into account net value and setoffs to calculate the particular economic damage to the victim.  The court explained: “Hines establishes that we are only concerned with the gross fair market valuation of the property obtained, not the net gain in value to the criminal.”

The defendant was charged with insurance fraud and obtaining property by false pretenses based on her submission of claims for living expenses that she did not incur. Following Hurricane Matthew, the defendant submitted a lease agreement purportedly signed by her stepfather providing that the defendant would pay $100 per day to stay in his home. Defendant’s stepfather subsequently told investigators that he did not have a lease agreement with the defendant and that she had not stayed in his home. The defendant was convicted of both charges at a jury trial.  The trial court consolidated the convictions for judgment and sentenced the defendant to 10 to 21 months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months of supervised probation. The trial court ordered the defendant to serve 60 days imprisonment as a condition of special probation.  The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by sentencing her for both obtaining property by false pretenses and insurance fraud for the same alleged misrepresentation. She also argued that the trial court improperly delegated its authority to the defendant’s probation officer by failing to set a date by which the term of special probation had to be completed.

(1) The court of appeals determined that the trial court did not err by sentencing her for obtaining property under false pretenses and insurance fraud even though both offenses arose from the same misrepresentation. To determine whether multiple punishments may be imposed for multiple convictions in a single trial based on a single course of conduct, the court must look to the intent of the legislature. Each of the offenses for which the defendant was convicted contained an element the other did not. Insurance fraud requires proving that the defendant presented a statement in support of a claim for payment under an insurance policy; obtaining property by false pretenses requires proving that the defendant’s misrepresentation did in fact deceive. Based on the separate and distinct elements that must be proven, the appellate court reasoned that the legislature clearly expressed its intent to proscribe and punish a misrepresentation intended to deceive under both statutes. Additionally, the court noted that the subject of each crime is violative of two separate, distinct social norms: “Where obtaining property by false pretenses is generally likely to harm a single victim, a broader class of victims is harmed by insurance fraud.” Slip. op. at 8. Finally, regarding the history of the treatment of the two crimes for sentencing purposes, the court noted that previous panels had sustained sentencing for convictions of obtaining property by false pretenses and insurance fraud arising from the same misrepresentation. For these reasons, the court of appeals determined that the trial court did not err by consolidating the Class H felony convictions for judgment and sentencing the defendant in the high presumptive range for one Class H felony.

(2) The trial court did not err by delegating authority to the defendant’s probation officer and by not setting a completion deadline for the active term of the sentence as a condition of special probation. G.S. 15A-1351(a) permits a trial court to require that a defendant submit to periods of imprisonment during probation at “whatever time or intervals within the period of probation . . . the court determines,” so long as the total period of such confinement does not exceed one-fourth of the maximum sentence imposed. It further requires that imprisonment imposed as a condition of special probation be completed within two years of conviction.

In this case, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 10 to 21 months of imprisonment and suspended that sentence for 24 months of supervised probation. As a condition of probation, the trial court ordered the defendant to serve 60 days of imprisonment as a condition of special probation. The court specified that the defendant was “‘TO SERVE 30 DAYS AT ONE TIME AND 30 DAYS AT ANOTHER TIME AS SCHEDULED BY PROBATION.’” Slip op. at 11. The court of appeals held that the trial court appropriately determined the “intervals within the period of probation” as two 30-day periods, and the completion date was set by statute as August 27, 2021—which, in defendant’s case, was both the end of the two-year probationary period and two years from the date of conviction.

The evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of obtaining property by false pretenses. The case arose out of false information submitted by the defendant in connection with his work as a bail bondsman. The indictment alleged that the thing of value obtained was a Professional Bail Bondsman’s License. At the time of the alleged acts, the defendant already had a bail bondsman license. The State argued, however, that the defendant’s false representations allowed him to retain his license, which--according to the State--constituted obtaining property. The court disagreed, concluding that retaining is not the same as obtaining. Among other things, it noted that the Department of Insurance has different processes and requirements for obtaining a bail bondsman license and renewing such a license.

(1) The evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for obtaining property by false pretenses. After the defendant falsely reported that his girlfriend had written 3 checks on his account without authorization, he received a provisional credit on his bank account with respect to one of the checks. He asserted, in part, that the provisional credit did not constitute a “thing of value.” The court disagreed, concluding that the provisional credit was the equivalent of money placed into his account, to which the defendant had access, at least temporarily. (2) The trial court did not commit plain by failing to instruct the jury that the defendant could not be convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses and of attempting to obtain property by false pretenses based on a single transaction. The defendant attempted to obtain $900 from his bank by making a false representation in an affidavit that 3 unauthorized checks were written on his account. He obtained $600 of the $900 he had attempted to obtain; this amount was attributable to one of the checks. He was charged and convicted of both obtaining property by false pretenses and of an attempted version of the crime with respect to the money he did not obtain. Construing the statute, the court concluded: “the General Assembly did not intend to subject a defendant to multiple counts of obtaining property by false pretenses where he obtains multiple items in a single transaction. Rather, the statute provides for an increase in punishment if the value of the property taken exceeds $100,000.” Here, the defendant attempted to collect the value of three checks in a single transaction but was successful only in obtaining credit for one of the checks. Notwithstanding this, the court concluded that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions. The court reasoned that the error was a double jeopardy issue and because the defendant failed to object at trial, the issue was waived on appeal.

The trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge of obtaining property by false pretenses. The indictment alleged that the defendant obtained US currency by selling to a company named BIMCO electrical wire that was falsely represented not to have been stolen. The defendant argued only that there was insufficient evidence that his false representation in fact deceived any BIMCO employee. He argued that the evidence showed that BIMCO employees were indifferent to legal ownership of scrap metal purchased by them and that they employed a “nod and wink system” in which no actual deception occurred. However, the evidence included paperwork signed by the defendant representing that he was the lawful owner of the materials sold and showed that based on his representation, BIMCO paid him for the materials. From this evidence, it logically follows that BIMCO was in fact deceived. Any conflict in the evidence was for the jury to decide.

In an obtaining property by false pretenses case, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. The charges arose out of the defendant’s acts of approaching two individuals (Ms. Hoenig and Ms. Harward), falsely telling them their roofs needed repair, taking payment for the work and then performing shoddy work or not completing the job. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the evidence showed only that he “charged a lot for poor quality work” and not that he “obtained the property alleged by means of a misrepresentation,” finding that “[the] evidence demonstrates that defendant deliberately targeted Ms. Harward and Ms. Hoenig, two elderly women, for the purpose of defrauding each of them by claiming their roofs needed significant repairs when, as the State’s evidence showed, neither woman’s roof needed repair at all.”

In an obtaining property by false pretenses case based on the defendant having falsely represented to a pawn shop that items sold to the shop were not stolen, there was sufficient evidence that the items were stolen. As to the first count, the serial number of the item sold as shown on the shop’s records matched the serial number reported by the theft victim; any variance between the model number reported by the victim and the model number reported on the shop’s records was immaterial. With respect to the second count, the model number of a recorder sold as shown on the shop’s records matched the model number of the item reported stolen by the victim, the item was uncommon and the victim identified it; any difference in the reported serial numbers was immaterial. As to a watch that was stolen with the recorder and described by the victim as a “Seiko dive watch with steel band,” the fact that the defendant sold the watch along with the recorder was sufficient to establish that it was stolen.

The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss false pretenses charges. The State failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant made a false representation with the intent to deceive when he told the victims that he intended to invest the money that they loaned him in legitimate financial institutions and would repay it with interest at the specified time. The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, simply tends to show that the defendant, after seriously overestimating his own investing skills, made a promise that he was unable to keep.

There was sufficient evidence to support a false pretenses conviction when the defendant falsely told a church congregation that his wife had died and that he was broke to elicit sympathy and obtain property.