From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mathis v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 11, 1982
161 Ga. App. 251 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)

Opinion

63291.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 11, 1982.

Theft by deception. Hall State Court. Before Judge Smith.

Daniel J. Sammons, for appellant.

Howard Oliver, Jr., for appellee.


The defendant appeals from her conviction of theft by deception (Code § 26-1803) under an accusation and supporting evidence that she persuaded a local grocer to let her have groceries worth $47.86 upon her promise to pay for them on the following Friday, which promise she failed to keep.

The gravamen of Code § 26-1803 (a) lies in obtaining the property of another by intentionally creating a false impression as to an existing fact or past event. Creating a false impression as to a future event, particularly, in this case, by a promise of future payment, is not sufficient. "The evidence here shows that the appellant offered to pay in the future for goods to be delivered in the present," whereupon "[t]he sole `interest' that the merchants had in the goods was a right to future payment pursuant to the sales contract." Elliott v. State, 149 Ga. App. 579, 580, 581 ( 254 S.E.2d 900) (1979). See to the same effect Croy v. State, 133 Ga. App. 244 ( 211 S.E.2d 183) (1974). The conviction is thus without supporting evidence as there was no false representation as to an existing fact.

Judgment reversed. Sognier and Pope, JJ., concur.

DECIDED FEBRUARY 11, 1982.


Summaries of

Mathis v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia
Feb 11, 1982
161 Ga. App. 251 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
Case details for

Mathis v. State

Case Details

Full title:MATHIS v. THE STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Georgia

Date published: Feb 11, 1982

Citations

161 Ga. App. 251 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)
288 S.E.2d 317

Citing Cases

Massey, Inc. v. Moe's Sw. Grill, LLC

"Creating a false impression as to a future event . . . is not sufficient." Mathis v. State, 161 Ga. App.…

Ketcham v. the State

There was evidence in the instant case authorizing a finding that appellants were consignees of gasoline…