Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed Lucien E. Forbes's conviction for uttering and delivering a fraudulent check with intent to defraud. The court held that Rhode Island law does not recognize the defendant's proposed defense that the payee knew the account lacked sufficient funds when the check was delivered, and that failure to pay within seven days after certified notice constituted prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. The court also upheld the denial of the defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to establish intent to defraud and support denial of Forbes's motions for judgment of acquittal.
- Whether Rhode Island law permits a defendant charged with uttering a fraudulent check to defend by showing that the payee knew the account lacked sufficient funds when the check was delivered.
- Whether the trial justice erred by refusing to give Forbes's requested jury instruction based on California law.
- Whether the trial justice erred in denying Forbes's motion for a new trial.
Holdings
- Rhode Island's fraudulent-check statutes do not provide a defense based on the payee's knowledge that the account lacked sufficient funds when the check was delivered.
- The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Forbes intended to defraud Grumprecht.
- The trial justice properly refused to instruct the jury on the unavailable California payee-knowledge defense and properly denied the motion for a new trial.
Key quotations
“Pursuant to § 19-9-26, a provision absent from the California Penal Code, defendant's failure to pay the note within seven days of receipt of the certified mailing constitutes prima facie evidence of an intent to defraud.” (642)
“Rhode Island law contains no such provision, thus, placing the burden on the responsible party the maker to honor the check within the statutory period.” (643)
Factual background
Forbes borrowed $32,000 from Nicholas Grumprecht and executed a demand note due March 21, 1997. Forbes delivered a postdated $32,000 check as repayment and assured Grumprecht that sufficient funds would be available by March 24, but the account remained insufficient and the check was dishonored. After receiving a certified demand notice under Rhode Island law, Forbes failed to pay within seven days. A jury convicted him of uttering and delivering the check with intent to defraud.
Procedural history
Forbes was charged by information with uttering and delivering a $32,000 check with intent to defraud, knowing that he lacked sufficient funds or credit. A Washington County Superior Court jury found him guilty on June 4, 1998. The trial justice denied his motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial; Forbes was sentenced to two years of supervised probation, restitution, and a restriction on signing checks for Forbes & Company. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island denied and dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment.
Remand instructions
The papers in the case were remanded to the Washington County Superior Court following affirmance of the judgment.