Richard Carl Bohling v. State
2017 WY 7
| Wyo. | 2017Background
- Richard Bohling, Albany County Prosecuting Attorney (2003–2014), purchased cameras/electronics using county accounts/credit card for office purchases between 2008–2012.
- County vouchers (signed by Bohling and approved by county commissioners) were used to pay vendors or county credit card companies; Bohling did not use personal funds.
- DCI investigation concluded Bohling used some equipment for personal purposes; State charged nine counts, later amending four counts to felony obtaining property by false pretenses (§ 6-3-407).
- At trial, jury convicted Bohling on four felony false-pretenses counts and one misdemeanor official misconduct count; acquitted on other counts.
- Bohling appealed, arguing § 6-3-407 requires transfer of title (ownership) as well as possession and that the State failed to prove title passed. The Supreme Court examined statutory meaning and the sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether obtaining property by false pretenses (§ 6-3-407) requires transfer of both title and possession | Bohling: statute requires transfer of title; without proof title passed, conviction cannot stand | State: statute does not expressly require title transfer; obtaining possession suffices | Court: "obtain" is a term of art—false pretenses requires the victim to consensually part with both title (ownership) and possession; title transfer (voidable title) is required |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Bohling obtained title and possession by false pretenses | Bohling: commissioners never intended to transfer ownership; no evidence title passed | State: argued county money paid for items and Bohling benefitted; alternative theories presented at trial | Court: Evidence insufficient—commissioners testified county retained ownership; no proof county intended to transfer title or that Bohling obtained county money or title; four felony convictions reversed; misdemeanor affirmed (appeal argument on misdemeanor abandoned) |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. State, 732 P.2d 1054 (Wyo. 1987) (false pretenses requires victim to pass title)
- Neel v. State, 454 P.2d 241 (Wyo. 1969) (distinguishes larceny from false pretenses by whether title passes)
- Otte v. State, 563 P.2d 1361 (Wyo. 1977) (fraudulently obtained possession converted with intent is larceny; reiterates title/possession distinction)
- Perritt v. State, 120 P.3d 181 (Wyo. 2005) (enumerates false-pretenses elements including victim passing title)
- Powell v. State, 282 P.3d 163 (Wyo. 2012) (explains victim must consensually part with both possession and title for false pretenses)
- People v. Williams, 305 P.3d 1241 (Cal. 2013) (discusses historical origins and title-focused nature of false-pretenses offense)