## Facts

- Kentucky conducted an undercover investigation into fraudulent practices at automobile transmission shops.
- A state garage mechanic inspected a 1968 Ford LTD, confirmed it was in proper working order, and then created a minor transmission malfunction correctable by a small adjustment without disassembly.
- An undercover detective, posing as the vehicle’s owner, had the car towed to a private transmission shop where Thomas Brown worked.
- Brown told the detective the transmission bands were broken, claimed full disassembly was necessary, and quoted repair or replacement pricing.
- The detective authorized only a repair.
- After Brown stated the work was finished, the detective returned the car to the state garage.
- The state mechanic inspected the car and concluded the transmission had been replaced rather than repaired.
- Brown was charged with theft by deception based on misrepresentations about the transmission’s condition, the work to be performed, and the charges.

## Issues

1. Whether theft by deception requires proof that the victim relied on the defendant’s misrepresentation.
2. Whether the reliance element is satisfied when the “victim” is an undercover officer who proceeds with the transaction during a sting operation.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed Brown’s conviction for theft by deception.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to show reliance, notwithstanding the undercover nature of the transaction.
- The jury could reasonably find Brown made material misrepresentations about the condition of the transmission and the necessary work, and that the transaction proceeded in response to those misrepresentations.

## Legal Principles

- Theft by deception requires proof of deception used to obtain property or value, including that the victim relied on the misrepresentation in entering the transaction.
- Reliance may be shown by the victim’s conduct in authorizing work or payment in response to the deception; it does not require proof the victim was subjectively fooled in the ordinary sense.
- An undercover officer acting as a consumer in a sting operation may serve as the “victim” for purposes of proving reliance and completing the offense when the officer authorizes services or payment based on the defendant’s deceptive representations.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the theft-by-deception conviction, concluding that an undercover operation does not negate the reliance element where the officer, acting as a customer, authorizes repairs and associated charges in response to the defendant’s material misrepresentations.


Brown v. Commonwealth, 656 S.W.2d 727 (Ky. 1983)