People v. Karp
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Harold Karp, Appellant
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
The indictment upon which defendant has been convicted contains thirty counts, fifteen charging theft as bailee and agent, the balance, that sort of theft labeled and prosecuted prior to 1942, as obtaining property by false pretenses. It is with these latter counts that we are concerned.
In this State, before the 1942 amendment of section 1290 of the Penal Law — as at the common law — the crime of obtaining property by false pretenses could not be predicated upon a promise or upon an expression of intention not meant to be fulfilled. (See People v. Blanchard, 90. N. Y. 314, 324;
People v. Rothstein, 180 N. Y. 148, 152 .) The new larceny law (Penal Law, §§ 1290, 1290-a; L. 1942, ch. 732), it is true, as the district attorney observes, was aimed at eliminating the subtle and confusing distinctions that had previously differentiated the various types of theft. It was not, however, designed to, and did not, broaden the scope of the crime of larceny or designate as criminal that which was previously innocent. Consequently, upon the facts here presented, the trial court should have charged, as requested, that a conviction could not be based upon “ intention ” or upon “ a state of facts not then in existence ”, and that, to convict, the jury must find that defendant falsely misrepresented an existing fact ” — for, as instructed, the jury was to return a verdict of guilt based upon evidence of conduct never regarded as criminal in this State.
*217 There must, therefore, be a new trial, and, since that is so, we call attention to section 1290-a of the Penal Law which permits proof of false representation or pretense only if there is allegation thereof in the indictment.
The judgments should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.
Loughran, Ch. J., Lewis, Conway, Desmond, Thacher, Dye and Fuld, JJ., concur.
Judgments reversed, etc.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 22 cases
View all citing references →- Federal District Courts1
- Federal Specialty Courts1
- State Highest Courts11
- State Appellate Courts7
- State Trial Courts2
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.