Theft by False Pretenses

[llworking]

The fact that you have witnesses is a good thing even without that clause in the Nevada law. Go talk to the police. The worst they can do is tell you its a civil matter.

[pg1067]

For some reason I thought that posters answering questions on this forum were at least in law school. I didn't think I'd be the one teaching. Well, Nevada has a penal code NRS 205.380 "theft by false pretenses" that is petty theft if under $950 or felony grand theft if over $950. It doesn't require to have anything in writing, or signed. It requires 2 witnesses just like most crimes. If you pay someone for something (that doesn't have to be right there in front of you) and they don't deliver, they can be criminally charged. I wanted to find out more about it but I think this may be the wrong forum.

First of all, just because the law doesn't require something to be in writing doesn't mean it's not phenomenally stupid not to get something in writing. Second, I wrote that the manner in which you apparently handled this transaction would make prosecution difficult, not impossible. That's one of the things I learned in law school many years ago and over the course of 30 years in the legal field: actually prosecuting someone and getting a conviction is a very different thing than cold analysis of a fact pattern based on a statute.

It requires 2 witnesses just like most crimes.

And where did you get the idea that "most crimes" require two witnesses. There's nothing in NRS 205.380 that says that. It is a fundamental principle of criminal procedure that the testimony of a single witness, if believed by the jury, may be sufficient to convict a defendant. See, e.g., Baldassarre v. Nevada, __ P.3d __ (Nev. Ct. App. 2018) ("As a matter of law, the testimony of a single witness, even if uncorroborated, is enough evidence to sustain a conviction"), citing Hutchins v. State, 110 Nev. 103, 109 (1994) ("the uncorroborated testimony of a victim, without more, is sufficient to uphold a rape conviction").

If he didn't "intend" to steal my money then he would either produce the car or return my money, wouldn't he? Wouldn't the intent become inherent by virtue of the outcome?

What you're describing is a breach of contract. A breach of contract, without more, is not evidence of an intent to steal.

I was just seeking legal advice.

Please review the disclaimer at the bottom of every page at this site.