Cash v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• upholding conviction for theft by deception where a reasonable jury could find that the complainant “would not have given” her property to the appellant “had it not been for his deception”
• “Evidence of a subsequent act, if connected in some material way with the event in question, can be probative of a prior state of mind”
• \jury could infer intent when at the time Cash obtained the money he had no intention to complete the work because he took the money and never performed\
• “We hold that the word ‘deception,’ as used in [the theft] statute, goes beyond the common law definition of false pretenses and includes any misrepresentation as to the future, as well as the past or present.” (emphasis added)
• intent to defraud could be inferred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).