State v. Bridgeforth

156 Ariz. 60 (1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Bridgeforth (D) was in prison when he concocted a phony loan brokerage scheme. D advertised that he could arrange loans in return for a flat fee of $275 plus a 9% commission. The service fee would be refunded if the loan was obtained. D accepted several deposits from customers and then closed the business without any loans funding. D was charged under the state antifraud law. D offered an instruction that, for a conviction, he had to be found to have intended to commit a fraud. The trial court rejected the instruction. D was convicted, and he appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. D appealed. The statute read: 'any person who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, or material omission is guilty...'.