People v Abbott – False Pretenses (POST)

Read People v. Abbott on pages 422 – 423.  Then answer the three “Questions for Discussion” at the end.

REPLY TO 

Leticia Carvalho Sousa“>Leticia Carvalho Sousa

YesterdayApr 16 at 11:34pm

Manage Discussion Entry

1. What facts in the case support the view that Gervasio committed grand larceny (false pretenses) and fraudulent accosting?

Gervasio accted on a false pretense that the victims car was broken and needed repairs. The coffee used to imitate an oil leak shows a clear intent to deceit and defraud. By claiming that there is a problem with the victims car, and they need payment to fix it, relies the intent to steal property. From those actions, the victim believes that the problem needs to be fixed and pays them off. All of those events satisfies the elements of false pretenses.

2. What facts support Abbott’s conviction?

That he approached the victim claiming that the spillage was oil leaking from the victims car. Knowing that those allegations were false, because Abbott saw Gervasio spiling the coffee under the victims car, makes her guilty.

3. Do you agree with the length of Abbott’s prison sentence?

I agree with the length of Abbott’s prison sentence. The fact that there is an economic harm, and the presence of an intention to deceive and obtain money by false allegations, is a conduct that should be fairly punished.

Nathaly Anguiano (She/Her)“>Nathaly Anguiano (She/Her)

YesterdayApr 16 at 7:07pm

Manage Discussion Entry

Questions for Discussion

1. What facts in the case support the view that Gervasio committed grand larceny (false pretenses) and fraudulent accosting?

The facts that would support that what Gervasio committed was grand larceny and fraudulent accosting was the amount that he had charged the victim and engaged in on a conspiratorial scheme along with the defendant to defraud money out of the victim in this case. In the textbook, it mentions grand larceny as, “The theft of property worth more than a specific dollar amount is the felony of grand larceny and is punishable by a year or more in prison” (Lippman, 2019). From this case, the victim was scammed and paid Gervasio approximately $1,400 of her money. Also in the reasoning, the textbook mentions that the defendant son Gervasio engaged in fraudulent accosting because it is defined as, ““[a] person is guilty of fraudulent accosting when he [or she] accosts a person in a public place with intent to defraud him [or her] of money or other property by means of a trick, swindle or confidence game”(Lippman, 2019). In Gervasio’s trick, he spilled coffee near the victims car in a way that it appeared to be liquid that was spilling from the car and used the help of Abbott to talk to the victim first and convince them that there was something wrong with the vehicle and that the victim needed to pay him in order to fix the car problem.

1. What facts support Abbott’s conviction?

The facts that support Abbott conviction was that she was fully aware of her son’s scams and assisted him by first waiting for the victim to come out of the store and then going up to the victim first to initiate the scam by saying there was something wrong with the car and introducing her son and said he had experience in dealing with cars since he is a mechanic, even though it turns out he was not. The other fact that supports Abbotts conviction was that she was present with Gervasio and the victim at the bank in order to deposit out the money needed to “repair” the car.

1. Do you agree with the length of Abbott’s prison sentence?

The sentence that Abbott received was 2 to 4 years and I would say it is the right amount as the misdemeanor of fraudulent accosting is 1 year but fourth degree grand larceny is up to 4 years.

References

Lippman, M. (2019). Contemporary criminal law: Concepts, cases, and controversies (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.

Reply