State v. BuchananÂ, 253 N.C. App. 783

In 2015 Buchanan alleged his girlfriend cashed three pre-signed checks from his account (checks for $600, $200, $100) and filed a criminal complaint and a bank Check Fraud/Forgery Affidavit listing all three checks.
The bank provisionally credited $600 to Buchanan’s account based on the $600 check; it did not provisionally credit the $200 or $100 checks. Buchanan did not withdraw or spend the provisional credit.
Police discovered text messages showing Buchanan had authorized his girlfriend to use the pre-signed checks for their daughter, contradicting his affidavit and complaint.
Buchanan was indicted and tried: convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses for the $600 provisional credit and of attempting to obtain property by false pretenses for the $200 and $100 checks; he later pleaded guilty to habitual felon status and appealed.
On appeal Buchanan argued (1) insufficiency of the evidence because the provisional credit was not a "thing of value" and he lacked intent to obtain it; and (2) the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury under the single-taking rule, resulting in multiple convictions for a single transaction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Buchanan "obtained" a thing of value	State: provisional credit is equivalent to money and thus a thing of value; evidence supported intent to obtain it	Buchanan: provisional $600 credit was not a thing of value; he never used it and only signed affidavit at police direction	Court: provisional credit is a "thing of value" (analogous to a loan); evidence permitted a jury to find Buchanan intended to obtain the credit — conviction upheld
Single-taking rule / double jeopardy and jury instruction	State: defendant attempted to obtain $900 in one transaction and actually obtained $600; multiple offenses are permissible where separate transactions occur	Buchanan: the three checks were a single taking; convicting for both obtaining and attempting (same transaction) violates single-taking rule	Court: single-taking rule applies to single continuous takings; here defendant attempted and succeeded in part — but Buchanan failed to preserve any constitutional (double jeopardy) objection at trial, so argument waived; convictions stand
Plain error in jury instructions	N/A (State defends instruction)	Buchanan: trial court should have instructed jury that it could not convict on multiple counts for a single taking	Court: any double jeopardy-type error was forfeited by failure to object at trial; plain error review not available for unpreserved constitutional issue

State v. Cronin, 299 N.C. 229 (1980) (holding a loan of money is a "thing of value" for false pretense offenses)
State v. Privette, 218 N.C. App. 459 (2012) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence)
State v. Patterson, 335 N.C. 437 (1994) (jury may infer intent from circumstantial evidence)
State v. Adams, 331 N.C. 317 (1992) (single taking rule in larceny: multiple items stolen in one continuous act constitute one offense)
State v. Marr, 342 N.C. 607 (1996) (single-taking analysis in larceny context)
State v. Jaynes, 342 N.C. 249 (1995) (same)
State v. Rawlins, 166 N.C. App. 160 (2004) (single-taking rule does not apply to distinct transactions separated in time)
State v. Gobal, 186 N.C. App. 308 (2007) (constitutional/double jeopardy issues must be raised at trial to preserve for appeal)