## Facts

- Fred Lorenzo entered a Von’s supermarket and was observed by the store manager switching price tags from one item to another, including gloves and chickens.
- The manager followed Lorenzo and stood several feet behind him during checkout; Lorenzo paid for multiple items, including chickens and a pair of gloves, without speaking to the cashier.
- The manager allowed the checkout transaction to proceed and then stopped and arrested Lorenzo in the parking lot after he exited the store with the cart.
- The purchased items bore price tags reflecting prices lower than their correct prices; loose tags on other chickens appeared to correspond to the items Lorenzo bought.
- Lorenzo denied switching tags, but the evidence showed he intended to pay less than the correct prices.

## Issues

1. Whether a completed theft by false pretenses is supported when the victim (through the store manager) knew of the misrepresentation and therefore did not rely on it in transferring the property.
2. Whether the same evidence supports attempted theft by false pretenses despite the absence of victim reliance.

## Decision

- The court held the evidence did not support completed theft by false pretenses because the store did not rely on the false price representations.
- The court modified the judgment to attempted theft, concluding Lorenzo intended to obtain property by false pretenses and committed overt acts toward that end.
- The matter was remanded for resentencing on the attempted theft conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Theft by false pretenses requires: (1) a false representation, (2) intent to defraud, and (3) actual reliance by the victim such that the misrepresentation materially influences the victim to part with property.
- Reliance is an essential element of fraud-based theft; if the victim is not deceived and does not rely on the misrepresentation, the completed offense is not established.
- Attempted theft by false pretenses may be proved by specific intent to commit the theft plus a direct but ineffectual act toward completion; failure of victim reliance prevents completion but does not bar attempt liability.

## Conclusion

Because the store manager observed the tag-switching and permitted the purchase to proceed only to apprehend Lorenzo, the store did not rely on any misrepresentation, defeating completed theft by false pretenses; however, Lorenzo’s intent and substantial steps supported a conviction for attempted theft, requiring modification of the judgment and resentencing.


People v. Lorenzo, 64 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 43 (Cal. Super. Ct. App. Dep’t 1976)