Utah Court of Appeals
Does a bad check's face value determine theft conviction severity? State v. Greene Explained
Summary
Defendant sold stolen stainless steel pipe to a scrap yard and received a $1080 check, which was later dishonored due to insufficient funds when he attempted to cash it. He was convicted of third-degree felony theft by deception based on the check’s face value exceeding $1000.
Analysis
In State v. Greene, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a check’s face value determines the severity of a theft conviction when the check is later dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Background and Facts
William Greene sold approximately thirty pieces of stolen stainless steel pipe to Lucency Corporation’s scrap yard for $1080, receiving a check for that amount. When Greene attempted to cash the check shortly afterward, the bank refused to honor it due to insufficient funds in Lucency’s account. Meanwhile, the pipe’s rightful owner located it at Lucency, leading to Greene’s arrest and prosecution for theft by deception.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the dishonored check’s face value of $1080 constituted sufficient property value to support a third-degree felony theft conviction, which requires property valued over $1000. Greene argued the check was worthless because it could not be cashed, making attempted theft by deception the most serious applicable charge.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the Pacheco presumption, which establishes that a check’s face value constitutes prima facie evidence of its actual value for theft grading purposes. The court held that this presumption may be rebutted only with evidence showing the check’s differing market value at the specific time and place the crime was committed. Greene failed to present evidence that Lucency’s account lacked sufficient funds at the moment he received the check, only that it was dishonored when he attempted to cash it later.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that timing is crucial in theft valuation cases involving checks. Practitioners challenging theft convictions based on check value must present evidence of the instrument’s actual worth at the precise moment the crime occurred, not at some subsequent time when payment difficulties arose. The decision also demonstrates Utah courts’ preference for protecting victims and the integrity of commercial transactions through the face value presumption.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Greene
Citation
2006 UT App 445
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20050891-CA
Date Decided
November 2, 2006
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The face value of a check obtained by deception constitutes prima facie evidence of its value for theft grading purposes, and this presumption is not rebutted merely by showing the check was later dishonored due to insufficient funds.
Standard of Review
Sufficiency of evidence claims are reviewed viewing evidence and all inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, reversing only when evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained reasonable doubt
Practice Tip
When challenging theft convictions based on check value, present evidence showing the check’s actual market value differed from its face value at the specific time and place the crime was committed, not at some later time when payment was attempted.
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.