People v. Fraser

California Court of Appeal

People v. Fraser

253 P. 340, 81 Cal. App. 281, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 762

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 10, 1927

DocketDocket No. 1397.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 253 P. 340 (People v. Fraser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Fraser, 253 P. 340, 81 Cal. App. 281, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 762 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

WORKS, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses under two counts. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.

It is contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Having in mind the rule that it is unnecessary to prove all of the false representations alleged in a charge of obtaining money by false pretenses, provided that enough be proven to convince the jury that those shown were material in inducing the complaining witness to part with his money (People v. Griesheimer, 176 Cal. 44 [167 Pac. 521]), we are satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the jury on each count. 'Some of the alleged false representations were not proved, it is true, but the evidence as to others was so complete that we find it unnecessary to consume the time necessary to state the showing actually made.

It is insisted by appellant that there was a variance between the allegations of the information and the evidence. In each count it was averred that the complaining witness was induced by the misrepresentations of appellant to invest money in a certain business conducted by him, and that the money was agreed to be returned if he became dissatisfied with the business. It is said that the evidence shows only that the complaining witness loaned money to appellant for the purposes of his business. If we admit for the sake of argument only that this is the showing made by the *283 record, we are not required to decide whether the variance was a material one. The question of variance was not presented to the trial court and it cannot be presented for the first time on appeal (People v. Fuski, 49 Cal. App. 4 [192 Pac. 552]; People v. Gonzales, 69 Cal. App. 609 [231 Pac. 1014]).

Other points are made by appellant, but they are so plainly without merit, from the mere statement of them, that we find it unnecessary to discuss them.

Judgment affirmed.

Craig, J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on April 11, 1927.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WORKS, P. J.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of obtaining money by false pretenses under two counts. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.

It is contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. Having in mind the rule that it is unnecessary to prove all of the false representations alleged in a charge of obtaining money by false pretenses, provided that enough be proven to convince the jury that those shown were material in inducing the complaining witness to part with his money (People v. Griesheimer, 176 Cal. 44 [167 Pac. 521]), we are satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion reached by the jury on each count. 'Some of the alleged false representations were not proved, it is true, but the evidence as to others was so complete that we find it unnecessary to consume the time necessary to state the showing actually made.

It is insisted by appellant that there was a variance between the allegations of the information and the evidence. In each count it was averred that the complaining witness was induced by the misrepresentations of appellant to invest money in a certain business conducted by him, and that the money was agreed to be returned if he became dissatisfied with the business. It is said that the evidence shows only that the complaining witness loaned money to appellant for the purposes of his business. If we admit for the sake of argument only that this is the showing made by the *283 record, we are not required to decide whether the variance was a material one. The question of variance was not presented to the trial court and it cannot be presented for the first time on appeal (People v. Fuski, 49 Cal. App. 4 [192 Pac. 552]; People v. Gonzales, 69 Cal. App. 609 [231 Pac. 1014]).

Other points are made by appellant, but they are so plainly without merit, from the mere statement of them, that we find it unnecessary to discuss them.

Judgment affirmed.

Craig, J., and Thompson, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the supreme court, after judgment in the district court of appeal, was denied by the supreme court on April 11, 1927.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 P. 340, 81 Cal. App. 281, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fraser-calctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack