Facts
- In September 1979, Ann Fleury’s purse was stolen; it contained a Shell credit card issued in the name of Fleury’s husband.
- In May 1980, Ervin Blackledge went to a Shell station in Washington, D.C., and asked the attendant to fill his gas tank.
- After the tank was filled, Blackledge presented the Fleury Shell credit card to pay.
- The attendant checked the card against a “bad card” list, saw it was reported stolen, refused to accept it, and told Blackledge he would have to pay cash.
- Blackledge attempted to leave the station without paying, but a police officer blocked his path, and Blackledge was arrested.
- At trial, Blackledge testified that Shirley Brown gave him the credit card and assured him it was not stolen and that he could use it to buy gasoline.
- A jury convicted Blackledge of receiving stolen property (the credit card) and attempted false pretenses (attempting to obtain gasoline by use of the stolen card).
Issues
- Whether the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Blackledge knew the credit card was stolen and possessed it with the required intent, supporting the conviction for receiving stolen property.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support attempted false pretenses where the gasoline was pumped before Blackledge presented the credit card, and the attendant did not accept the card.
Decision
- The court affirmed both convictions.
- Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, the court held that the jury could infer guilty knowledge and unlawful intent from Blackledge’s possession and attempted use of the stolen credit card, his conduct when confronted, and the jury’s right to reject his explanation.
- The court held that the attempted false pretenses conviction did not fail merely because the card was presented after the gasoline was pumped and the attendant did not accept the card; Blackledge’s conduct and intent were enough to constitute an attempt.
Legal Principles
- On review for sufficiency of the evidence, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and gives the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.
- For receiving stolen property, the government must prove the property was stolen, the defendant possessed it, and the defendant knew it was stolen (or believed it was stolen), along with the required wrongful intent; knowledge and intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
- A jury may disbelieve a defendant’s explanation for possession of stolen property and may infer guilty knowledge from the surrounding circumstances, including deceptive use and flight or attempted flight when challenged.
- Attempted false pretenses focuses on intent to defraud plus an act going beyond preparation toward obtaining property by misrepresentation; the attempt offense is not defeated simply because the victim did not ultimately rely and the transaction was not completed.
Conclusion
The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed Blackledge’s convictions for receiving stolen property and attempted false pretenses, holding that the circumstances surrounding his possession and attempted use of the stolen Shell credit card permitted the jury to find guilty knowledge and fraudulent intent, and that presenting the stolen card as payment after fueling—though unsuccessful—constituted an attempt to obtain property by false pretenses.