Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

121 Ariz. 106

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided October 17, 1978

Court of Appeals of Arizona · decided 1978-10-17

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1987

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A `scheme or artifice to defraud' consists of forming a plan or devising some trick to perpetrate a fraud upon another.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Suarez

Relies on 44 F. Supp. 940 - United States v. Corlin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-10-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

¶2Appellant was convicted of violation of A.R.S. Sec. 13-320.01 which provides:

“Any person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly and intentionally obtains or attempts to obtain money ... by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises is guilty of a felony . . . ”

¶3He contends that the elements of the crime were not explained to him prior to his guilty plea and there was no evidence to support it. We do not agree.

¶4The trial court informed appellant of the elements of the crime as they are stated in the statute. Appellant admitted that he attempted to sell a substance to a narcotics agent which he represented to be a narcotic drug when in truth and in fact it was flour and quinine. He did this because he had been informed that the buyer would not know the difference. A “scheme or artifice to defraud” consists of forming a plan or devising some trick to perpetrate a fraud upon another. United States v. Corlin, 44 F.Supp. 940, 943 (S.D.Cal.1942). Appellant’s responses at the change of plea proceedings show the existence of both a scheme to defraud and an artifice to defraud and that he understood the elements of the crime.

¶5Affirmed.

RICHMOND, C. J., and HATHAWAY, J., concur.
/121/ariz/106 · .json · Public domain