BOPST v. STATE

BOPST v. STATE
1952 OK CR 122
248 P.2d 658
96 Okl.Cr. 28
Case Number: A-11696
Decided: 09/17/1952
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

(Syllabus.)

1. False Pretenses Prosecution for Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses Must Be Based Upon Facts Existing at Time of Parting With Money by Owner. A prosecution for obtaining money under false pretenses must be based upon the facts as they existed at the time of, and be the condition precedent to, the parting with the money by the owner.

2. Same Sufficiency of Evidence to Sustain Conviction for Obtaining Money Under False Pretenses. The evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for obtaining money under false pretenses.

Appeal from District Court, Washington County; James T. Shipman, Judge.

Roy L. Bopst was convicted of obtaining money under false pretenses, and he appeals. Affirmed.

E.E. Heyl, Bartlesville, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., and Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES, J.

The defendant, Roy L. Bopst, was charged by an information filed in the district court of Washington county with the crime of obtaining money under false pretenses; was tried; and pursuant to the verdict of the jury was sentenced to pay a fine of $400; and has appealed.

No briefs have been filed. Under those circumstances we examine the record for fundamental error only and if none is found judgment will be affirmed. Rule 9, Criminal Court of Appeals.

The proof of the state showed that the defendant sold an undivided one-half interest in an oil and gas lease which he did not own. The defendant explained the circumstances under which the transaction was made with the prosecuting witness, and if his evidence was believed by the jury should have been acquitted

There were no exceptions saved to any of the instructions which were given and we have been unable to find any fundamental error in the record. The state's case was weak, but we cannot say that there is no competent evidence to sustain the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

BRETT, P.J., and POWELL, J., concur.