## Facts

- Kenneth L. Barker opened a checking account at First Wyoming Bank of Rawlins.
- Barker arranged for the bank to send a “customer’s draft” to a Montana bank to effect a purported $30,000 wire transfer into his new Wyoming account.
- Barker had no account or funds at the Montana bank capable of honoring the draft.
- Before any funds arrived, Barker wrote and cashed a $500 check on the Wyoming account.
- Bank personnel cashed the check in reliance on Barker’s representation that the $30,000 transfer was forthcoming.
- The Montana bank returned the customer’s draft unpaid, and the Wyoming bank never received the $30,000.
- The State charged Barker with obtaining property by false pretenses under Wyo. Stat. § 6-3-106 (1977), and a jury convicted him.

## Issues

1. Whether Wyoming’s insufficient-funds (bad-check) statute, Wyo. Stat. § 6-3-110 (1977), impliedly repealed or made exclusive the remedy for conduct involving a check, thereby barring prosecution under the false-pretenses statute, Wyo. Stat. § 6-3-106 (1977).
2. Whether Barker’s conduct was merely issuance of a check with insufficient funds or a broader scheme of false representations supporting a false-pretenses conviction.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that § 6-3-110 did not impliedly repeal or preclude application of § 6-3-106.
- The court concluded Barker’s actions constituted a broader fraudulent scheme, with the check serving as an instrument used to obtain money based on false representations.
- The court upheld prosecution under the false-pretenses statute because the evidence showed false representations, reliance, intent to defraud, and actual obtainment of money.

## Legal Principles

- Repeal by implication is disfavored; statutes covering related conduct are construed to coexist when both can be given effect.
- A false-pretenses offense requires a false representation (of existing or past fact), intent to defraud, victim reliance, and actual obtainment of money or property.
- A check can be part of a false-pretenses offense when it functions within a larger deception that induces the victim to part with property.
- The existence of a specific bad-check statute does not, without clear legislative direction, make it the exclusive charging vehicle for all check-related fraud.
- When a defendant’s conduct fits both a specific and a general criminal statute, the State may charge the offense that matches the full scope of the conduct, absent a statutory or constitutional bar.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Barker’s false-pretenses conviction, holding that Wyoming’s bad-check statute did not limit prosecution where the defendant used a fabricated wire-transfer arrangement and related misrepresentations to induce a bank to give him cash.


Barker v. State, 599 P.2d 1349 (Wyo. 1979)