## Facts

- Anthony and Carl Locks, brothers, ran a scheme using young women who did not realize they were being used to obtain merchandise by worthless checks.
- The brothers formed relationships with the women and persuaded them to buy expensive goods from retail stores using the women’s personal checks, even though the women lacked sufficient funds in their checking accounts.
- Anthony and Carl promised the women they would supply enough money to cover each check and would also pay the women a profit.
- To explain how they would come up with the money, the brothers claimed they had “inside information” that would soon let them win a local numbers game.
- The women used their own checks to buy merchandise from merchants in ordinary retail transactions, and the merchants released the goods to the women at the point of sale.
- After the purchases, the women delivered the merchandise to the brothers, expecting to be repaid as promised.
- The checks were dishonored for insufficient funds, and the brothers kept the goods and never reimbursed the women.
- Each brother was indicted on five counts of grand larceny and five counts of uttering a check with intent to defraud.
- After a joint jury trial, Anthony was convicted of three counts of grand larceny and three counts of uttering; Carl was convicted of two counts of grand larceny and two counts of uttering.
- On appeal, the brothers argued that the proof, at most, showed obtaining property by false pretenses (because title passed in the sales), not grand larceny; Anthony also challenged the denial of severance from Carl.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence could support grand larceny convictions where the merchants, in ordinary retail check sales, intended to transfer title as well as possession of the goods.
2. Whether the evidence supported the convictions for uttering a check with intent to defraud based on the scheme’s use of insufficient-funds checks to obtain merchandise.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by trying the brothers together and denying Anthony’s motion for severance.

## Decision

- The court reversed the grand larceny convictions because the relevant transfers occurred through unconditional retail sales in which the merchants intended to pass title, making the conduct (if criminal) one of false pretenses rather than larceny.
- The court affirmed the uttering convictions, concluding the evidence supported that the defendants caused worthless checks to be passed with intent to defraud.
- The court affirmed the denial of severance, holding joinder was proper given the connected series of acts and that Anthony did not show specific prejudice requiring separate trials.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with reversing the grand larceny convictions while leaving the uttering convictions intact.

## Legal Principles

- Common-law larceny requires a trespassory taking; it applies when the victim intends to transfer possession only, not title.
- “Larceny by trick” fits within larceny when the victim is deceived into handing over property for a limited or special purpose, so title does not pass.
- False pretenses applies when the victim, though induced by fraud, intends to transfer title to the wrongdoer; that intent to pass title defeats the trespass element needed for larceny.
- In a typical retail sale where a merchant exchanges goods for a check, the transaction is generally treated as an unconditional sale in which the merchant intends to pass title at the point of sale; fraud in obtaining the goods in that setting is not larceny.
- Use of an intermediary (here, the women who wrote and delivered the checks to merchants) does not change the controlling question for larceny versus false pretenses: whether the transferor intended to pass title.
- Uttering a check with intent to defraud may be proved where a defendant participates in putting a check into circulation knowing it will not be honored and intending that the recipient rely on it.
- Defendants may be joined for trial when charges arise from the same scheme or connected acts; severance is discretionary and requires a concrete showing of unfair prejudice, not merely that evidence against a co-defendant is damaging.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Court of Appeals held that the brothers’ bad-check scheme could not support grand larceny convictions because the merchants intended, in ordinary retail sales, to pass title when they accepted checks; the court therefore reversed the larceny counts, affirmed the uttering convictions, and upheld the denial of severance.


Locks v. United States, 388 A.2d 873 (1978)