Utah Court of Appeals
What constitutes a thing of value in Utah bad check prosecutions? State v. Mower Explained
Summary
Mower issued a $4900 loan check to Kirkman in exchange for Kirkman’s promise to provide his vehicle title as security, but did not fund the account to cover the check pending receipt of the title. When Kirkman deposited the check without providing the title and the check was dishonored, Mower was charged with issuing a bad check but moved to dismiss arguing he received nothing of value.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a fundamental question about the scope of Utah’s bad check statute in State v. Mower, clarifying what constitutes a “thing of value” sufficient to support criminal prosecution under Utah Code section 76-6-505(2).
Background and Facts
Mower operated a short-term lending business secured by vehicle titles. He issued Kirkman a $4900 loan check in exchange for Kirkman’s promise to provide his vehicle title as security by the end of the day. However, Mower did not fund the corresponding account pending receipt of the title. Kirkman never returned with the title but instead deposited the check and wrote checks against the deposit until depleted. When the loan check was presented and dishonored for insufficient funds, the State charged Mower with issuing a bad check.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Mower’s loan check was issued “for the purpose of obtaining from any person, firm, partnership, or corporation, any money, property, or other thing of value” as required by the bad check statute. The trial court dismissed the charge, concluding that Mower did not obtain anything of value under State v. Green.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Mower’s purpose must be evaluated solely at the moment of issuance, not in light of subsequent events. The court distinguished State v. Green, which involved a defendant writing checks between his own accounts. Here, Mower issued the check in exchange for Kirkman’s legally enforceable promise to repay the loan, which constitutes a thing of value. The promised vehicle title provided additional but unnecessary support for finding sufficient value.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that contractual rights and enforceable promises constitute sufficient “value” under Utah’s bad check statute. Practitioners defending bad check cases should focus on the defendant’s contemporaneous purpose rather than subsequent developments. The ruling also confirms that assignable legal rights to collect money have immediate value sufficient to satisfy the statutory elements, even without additional security.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Mower
Citation
2005 UT App 438
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20040491-CA
Date Decided
October 14, 2005
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A loan agreement creating a legally enforceable promise to repay money constitutes a ‘thing of value’ sufficient to support a bad check conviction under Utah Code section 76-6-505(2).
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law on motions to dismiss
Practice Tip
When challenging bad check charges, focus on the defendant’s purpose at the time of issuance rather than subsequent events, as the statutory ‘thing of value’ element requires contemporaneous consideration.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.