## Facts

- Albert Winnett asked Calvin Swartz to sign promissory notes so Winnett could show a friend that Winnett was in good standing in the community.
- Winnett represented that he did not want the notes for any other purpose.
- Winnett represented that he would keep the notes in his own possession and then destroy them.
- Relying on these representations, Swartz signed a $200 promissory note.
- The State indicted Winnett for larceny based on obtaining Swartz’s signature to a promissory note by false pretenses.
- The indictment alleged Winnett’s representations were false because he actually wanted the note to raise money on it and did not intend to keep the note in his possession or destroy it.
- Winnett demurred to the indictment; the trial court overruled the demurrer, Winnett was convicted, and he appealed claiming the demurrer should have been sustained.

## Issues

1. Whether an indictment for larceny based on obtaining a signature to a promissory note by false pretenses is legally sufficient when it alleges the defendant falsely stated the limited purpose for which the note was sought and falsely represented his intent to keep and later destroy the note.
2. Whether alleged misrepresentations about the defendant’s purpose and then-present intent regarding the note can satisfy the “false pretenses” element for purposes of charging the offense.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the indictment was legally sufficient and the trial court properly overruled the demurrer.
- The court treated the indictment’s allegations as charging more than a later broken promise: it alleged that Winnett’s statements about why he wanted the note and what he intended to do with it were false when made.
- The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment withstands demurrer if it alleges facts that, if true, constitute each element of the charged offense and gives the defendant notice of the conduct alleged to be criminal.
- For false-pretenses-based theft offenses, the false representation may consist of a misstatement of an existing fact, which can include a defendant’s present intent when the pleading alleges the defendant did not actually hold that intent at the time of the representation.
- Obtaining another person’s signature on a promissory note (thereby creating a legally enforceable obligation and enabling the instrument’s use for value) may be treated as obtaining a thing of value for purposes of a larceny/false-pretenses charge.
- A charging instrument is not defective merely because the alleged false representation relates to how the defendant said he would use the note, where the indictment also alleges the defendant’s intent was fraudulent at the time he induced the signature.

## Conclusion

In *Winnett v. State*, the Ohio Circuit Court concluded that the indictment adequately charged larceny predicated on false pretenses because it alleged Winnett obtained Swartz’s signature on a $200 promissory note by falsely stating the note’s limited purpose and by falsely representing his then-present intent to keep and destroy it, when in fact he intended to use it to raise money; the demurrer was properly denied and the conviction was affirmed.


Winnett v. State, 18 Ohio C.C. 515 (1899)