## Facts

- Phebus and his wife were shopping in a store for a shelf.
- The store offered an unfinished shelf marked with a $1.88 price tag and a finished shelf marked with a $6.53 price tag.
- Phebus removed the $1.88 price tag from the unfinished shelf and placed it over the $6.53 price tag on the finished shelf.
- Phebus and his wife then took the finished shelf to checkout and purchased it for $1.88 based on the switched tag.
- Store detectives, who had witnessed the tag switch, stopped Phebus after the purchase.
- The prosecution charged Phebus with larceny by trick.
- The circuit court quashed the larceny-by-trick charge, concluding that the evidence from the preliminary examination supported theft by false pretenses rather than larceny by trick.
- The prosecution appealed the order quashing the charge.

## Issues

1. Did the circuit court err by quashing the larceny-by-trick charge on the ground that the alleged price-tag switch, if proven, amounted to obtaining property by false pretenses rather than larceny by trick?

## Decision

- The appellate court agreed with the circuit court that the facts supported a charge of obtaining property by false pretenses, not larceny by trick.
- In a retail sale induced by a false representation of price, the merchant parts with both possession and title to the item at the point of sale (even though the merchant is deceived about the price), which fits false pretenses rather than larceny by trick.
- Because the prosecution charged the wrong theft theory on these facts, the circuit court properly quashed the larceny-by-trick charge.
- Disposition: the order quashing the larceny-by-trick charge was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Larceny by trick applies when the victim, due to fraud, intends to transfer only possession of property while retaining title; the defendant’s fraud supplies the “trespass” element missing from a consensual handover.
- Obtaining property by false pretenses applies when the victim, because of a false representation, intends to transfer title (and usually possession) to the defendant.
- In a standard retail transaction, the seller generally intends to transfer title upon payment and completion of the sale; deceit about the price typically affects the seller’s decision to sell but does not convert the transfer into a possession-only delivery.
- When the proof at the preliminary examination supports a different theft offense than the one charged, a court may quash the information rather than allow the case to proceed on an unsupported theory.

## Conclusion

People v. Phebus holds that switching price tags to buy an item for less than its true marked price supports a charge of obtaining property by false pretenses, because the store intends to transfer title at the checkout despite being deceived about the price; therefore, the circuit court properly quashed the prosecution’s larceny-by-trick charge.


People v. Phebus, 323 N.W.2d 423 (1982)