Legal Opinion · Dissent

People v. Sumner

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 10, 1982No. 81-1255Published

1Dissent

PRESIDING JUSTICE JOHNSON,

dissenting:

I would affirm the decision of the trial court. The statute defining deceptive practices provides that failure to have sufficient funds when the check is delivered is prima facie evidence that the offender knows it will not be paid by the depository, and he has intent to defraud (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 38, par. 17 — 1(B)(d)). I think the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the transaction defendant had the statutorily required intent to defraud.

The record revealed that when Sumner issued the $2,100 check he knew he did not…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. People v. LundbladeAppellate Court of Illinois · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API