## Facts

- Cage obtained possession of a used car from a Lincoln-Mercury dealership in Ypsilanti, Michigan after telling a salesperson he wanted to test drive it and have it “checked out” at a local service station.
- Cage stated he would buy the car if he liked it after the test drive and inspection.
- During the plea colloquy, Cage admitted he never intended to have the car inspected, never intended to return it, and made the statements to gain possession and convert the car to his own use.
- Cage pleaded guilty in circuit court to obtaining property over $100 by false pretenses under MCL 750.218.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding Cage misrepresented his present intention and adopting a rule allowing “false promises” when false from the outset.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to review whether a fraudulent promise regarding future conduct can satisfy the “existing or past fact” requirement for false pretenses.

## Issues

1. Whether Michigan’s false pretenses statute permits conviction based solely on a misrepresentation of the defendant’s present intent to perform a future act.
2. Whether a “false promise” (false from the outset) qualifies as the required misrepresentation of an existing or past fact under MCL 750.218.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the judgment upholding Cage’s conviction and remanded.
- The Court held false pretenses under MCL 750.218 cannot be predicated on misrepresentation of a present intent to do a future act.
- The Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ adoption of the “false promise/false ab initio” approach.
- Because Cage’s plea established only promissory misrepresentations about future conduct, the factual basis was insufficient for false pretenses.

## Legal Principles

- False pretenses is a statutory offense that requires the “pretense” to be a misrepresentation of a present/existing fact or a past fact or event.
- A promise or representation regarding future conduct does not satisfy the statute, even if made with fraudulent intent at the time.
- Treating a misrepresented present mental state (intent) as the necessary “present fact” improperly expands a penal statute beyond its established scope.
- Any extension of false pretenses to cover promissory fraud is a legislative decision; courts must construe criminal statutes narrowly.

## Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court held that a fraudulent promise about future performance, even when made without intent to perform, does not meet the false pretenses element requiring a misrepresentation of past or existing fact; Cage’s guilty plea therefore lacked an adequate factual basis under MCL 750.218, requiring reversal and remand.


People v. Cage, 410 Mich. 401, 301 N.W.2d 819 (Mich. 1981)