State v. Braswell
225 N.C. App. 734
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Braswell appeals a judgment imposing 58 to 79 months for obtaining property over $100,000 by false pretenses; conviction overturned for insufficient evidence of false pretenses; the State relied on loans from the Greenes dating 1998–2009 and alleged misrepresentation about investing in legitimate institutions; no evidence showed he failed to invest in legitimate institutions as alleged; Fidelity account showed substantial investment activity, undermining the false representation claim; defendant admitted losses and inability to repay; record showed he led a conservative lifestyle and did not demonstrate misappropriation of Greenes’ funds; the trial court denied a motion to dismiss, the jury convicted, and appeal followed; the appellate court vacated the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for false pretenses | State contends evidence shows false pretenses | Braswell argues no false representation proven | Insufficient evidence; conviction vacated |
| Adequacy of indictment for misrepresentation | Indictment alleged false pretenses based on guaranteed 6% return | Indictment adequately alleged misrepresentation | Record lacks evidence of false representation; vacate conviction |
| Intent to defraud | State must prove intentional deceit | Braswell lacked fraudulent intent | Intent not proven; record shows overestimating skills, not deceit; vacate conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Compton, 90 N.C. App. 101 (N.C. App. 1988) (essential element requires a false representation proven by evidence)
- State v. Cronin, 299 N.C. 229 (N.C. 1980) (indictment must allege the misrepresentation; intent proven by circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Bennett, 84 N.C. App. 689 (N.C. App. 1987) (intent to defraud shown by surrounding circumstances)
- State v. Hines, 54 N.C. App. 529 (N.C. App. 1981) (circumstantial proof of intent to cheat or defraud)