State v. Halmi

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

State v. Halmi

654 A.2d 1218, 1995 R.I. LEXIS 55, 1995 WL 115847

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedMarch 9, 1995

DocketNo. 94-229-C.A.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 654 A.2d 1218 (State v. Halmi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Halmi, 654 A.2d 1218, 1995 R.I. LEXIS 55, 1995 WL 115847 (R.I. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This ease came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on February 22, 1995, pursuant to an order that directed the defen[1219]*1219dant, Dezi Halmi, to show cause why his appeal should not be summarily decided. The defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction of five counts of writing fraudulent checks in violation of G.L.1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 19-19-3 and from the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial.

After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing the arguments of counsel for the parties, we conclude that cause has not been shown, and therefore, the ease will be decided at this time.

The defendant, who was president and sole stockholder of Hyperion Enterprises, Inc., had a long-standing business relationship with John Quinn, Jr., an officer in his family’s business, Rhode Island Plastics, which supplied materials to defendant’s firm. The defendant owed Rhode Island Plastics approximately $300,000, which was being paid pursuant to a payment plan under which defendant was to continue to receive supplies, provided payments were timely made. During 1991, eight checks written by defendant representing approximately $41,000 were returned for insufficient funds. In addition, defendant also wrote two additional checks for $25,000 each that were eventually returned for insufficient funds.

The defendant testified that his company continued to do poorly, thereby preventing him from having sufficient funds to pay the checks. The defendant alleged that he did not intend to defraud his supplier and thus could not be found guilty of the charges.

After a jury found defendant guilty, he appealed, alleging the state failed to establish a prima facie case against him because of the lack of evidence of his intent to defraud. However, pursuant to § 19-19-4 prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud can be established by the fact of insufficient funds at presentation of the check. Such was the situation in the instant case where evidence clearly showed defendant knew funds were not available to cover the checks he had written. Therefore, the trial justice properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. Likewise the trial justice properly denied defendant’s motion for a new trial, after finding that there “wasn’t any money in the account, it was overdrawn on the day the checks were written and it never, ever got out of the red again.”

Therefore, the defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed, and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

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

ORDER

This ease came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on February 22, 1995, pursuant to an order that directed the defen[1219]*1219dant, Dezi Halmi, to show cause why his appeal should not be summarily decided. The defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction of five counts of writing fraudulent checks in violation of G.L.1956 (1989 Reenactment) § 19-19-3 and from the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial.

After reviewing the memoranda submitted by the parties and after hearing the arguments of counsel for the parties, we conclude that cause has not been shown, and therefore, the ease will be decided at this time.

The defendant, who was president and sole stockholder of Hyperion Enterprises, Inc., had a long-standing business relationship with John Quinn, Jr., an officer in his family’s business, Rhode Island Plastics, which supplied materials to defendant’s firm. The defendant owed Rhode Island Plastics approximately $300,000, which was being paid pursuant to a payment plan under which defendant was to continue to receive supplies, provided payments were timely made. During 1991, eight checks written by defendant representing approximately $41,000 were returned for insufficient funds. In addition, defendant also wrote two additional checks for $25,000 each that were eventually returned for insufficient funds.

The defendant testified that his company continued to do poorly, thereby preventing him from having sufficient funds to pay the checks. The defendant alleged that he did not intend to defraud his supplier and thus could not be found guilty of the charges.

After a jury found defendant guilty, he appealed, alleging the state failed to establish a prima facie case against him because of the lack of evidence of his intent to defraud. However, pursuant to § 19-19-4 prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud can be established by the fact of insufficient funds at presentation of the check. Such was the situation in the instant case where evidence clearly showed defendant knew funds were not available to cover the checks he had written. Therefore, the trial justice properly denied the motion for judgment of acquittal. Likewise the trial justice properly denied defendant’s motion for a new trial, after finding that there “wasn’t any money in the account, it was overdrawn on the day the checks were written and it never, ever got out of the red again.”

Therefore, the defendant’s appeal is denied and dismissed, and the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 A.2d 1218, 1995 R.I. LEXIS 55, 1995 WL 115847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-halmi-ri-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack