State v. Deluzain

hi respectfully dissent from the majority’s reversal of the defendant’s conviction and sentence and would affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

The defendant argues the evidence presented at the trial of this matter was insufficient because the state failed to prove that she intended to defraud Mr. Poux when she issued the series of checks in connection with the business agreement. The defendant’s failure to comply with the 10-day demand letter created a rebuttable presumption that she issued the checks with the intent to defraud. See La. R.S. 14:71 A(2). A finding of intent to…