Vroom v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that the State could not prove the defendant’s intent to commit theft because there was no evidence that the defendant’s financial disclosure was inaccurate at the time it was made
• finding the evidence insufficient to support grand theft conviction where it showed only that the defendant’s “financial condition at the time of the requested repayment was not consistent with that represented in the financial disclosure statement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).