Pittman v. State

The majority opinion states: “Clearly there was evidence supporting the finding by the trial court that the check was given for a present consideration.” I believe the record in this case contains no such evidence. Clearly, the check was given for an outstanding debt. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.

Although the majority opinion states that the “trier of fact... was authorized to infer from the state’s evidence that it was the defendant’s purpose to cheat and defraud the seller and then cause *693him to suffer loss resulting from his reliance on the defendant’s wrongful act as charged in the…