## Facts

- Allen was an agent for another person in the collection and handling of money.
- The prosecution charged that Allen obtained $400 by false pretenses—specifically, that he used false and fraudulent representations to cause the owner to treat the $400 as transferred to him (i.e., to pass title), even though he held the funds in an agency capacity.
- At trial, the judge instructed the jury that it did not matter whether the owner personally handed Allen $400 from her own pocket or whether the $400 consisted of money Allen had collected and was holding for her as agent.
- Allen was convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses.
- After the conviction, Allen applied for a rehearing, arguing the jury instruction misstated the law because (in his view) the offense requires the false representation to be the means by which the defendant first obtains possession of the property.

## Issues

1. Under Ohio’s false-pretenses statute, is it necessary that the defendant obtain possession of the property by the false representation, or is it enough that the defendant uses false pretenses to obtain title to money already in the defendant’s hands as an agent?
2. Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that it was immaterial whether the $400 came into Allen’s hands by direct payment from the owner or by Allen’s prior collection and custody as her agent?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Ohio denied Allen’s application for rehearing.
- The court left the conviction in place, concluding that the trial court’s instruction was not erroneous.
- The court held that a defendant may be convicted of obtaining money by false pretenses even if he already had possession of the money as an agent, so long as he obtained title (or the owner’s consent to treat the money as his) through false and fraudulent representations.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio’s false-pretenses statute reaches a defendant who “obtains anything of value” by false pretenses; it is not limited to cases where the defendant first gains physical custody through the misrepresentation.
- Possession and title are distinct: lawful possession as an agent does not prevent liability if the defendant uses deception to cause the owner to pass title or ownership rights.
- A jury may be instructed that the manner in which the defendant initially came into possession is immaterial where the question for the jury is whether the defendant obtained the money (or its title) by false and fraudulent representations.
- When the victim’s reliance on the defendant’s misrepresentation is the basis for treating the property as transferred to the defendant, the “obtaining” element is satisfied even though the defendant already held the property.

## Conclusion

Allen v. State holds that, under Ohio law, false pretenses does not require that the defendant first acquire possession through deception; an agent who already holds the principal’s money can still commit the offense if he uses fraudulent representations to obtain title or ownership rights to that money, and a jury instruction treating the route of initial possession as immaterial is proper under that rule.


Allen v. State, 153 N.E. 218 (1926)