Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kurck v. State
Citations: 242 Ark. 742; 415 S.W.2d 61; 1967 Ark. LEXIS 1316Docket: 5254
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; May 29, 1967; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
CoNley Byrd, Justice, presided over an appeal resulting from a conviction related to a fraudulent scheme described by the State Police as a “green money racket money press.” The defendants, CoNley Byrd and Ira Coleman Roberts, were accused of obtaining $5,000 from R. M. James Jr. through false pretenses on February 14, 1966, in Polk County, Arkansas. The scheme involved convincing James that they could duplicate a $10 bill, which they did not intend to return. Prior to the incident, Byrd visited James with a $10 bill, which James deemed authentic and suggested taking it to the bank for verification. Byrd falsely claimed the bill was a duplicate. Subsequently, Byrd introduced James to a man named Oscar Allen, who conducted a series of actions involving chemicals to create a fake copy of the bill, leading to a proposal for James to invest $10,000 in the scheme. On the day of the fraud, James provided $5,000, and after a series of exchanges and adjustments to his money, the group moved to a motel where Byrd and Allen engaged in further deceptive actions involving the handling and manipulation of cash. Ultimately, after a prolonged wait for Allen to return with developing materials, Byrd and James discovered that the press contained only two $1 bills and one $5 bill, with the remainder being counterfeit play money. Byrd disposed of the fake money and left with the press, solidifying their fraudulent conduct. James consulted his lawyer and visited Kurck, who identified Oscar Allen as a man he met in Newport News, Virginia, in 1962, and testified about a swindle involving a "green money racket." Policeman Carroll Page recounted meeting Kurck and Garner Ward in Mena on January 5, 1966, where they reported losing $2,700 in a scam orchestrated by George Grayson, whom Kurck had previously encountered in Virginia. Kurck described how Grayson demonstrated duplicating a $20 bill and arranged to meet in Mena, but upon returning, they found only play money in the press. Kurck detailed Grayson's physical characteristics, including a notable neck scar. Inez G. Bushman, a drive-in operator, testified that Kurck approached her with a $5 bill he claimed was duplicate money and later brought a Mr. King to discuss duplicating bills. Bushman, skeptical of the process due to discrepancies in the bills, contacted treasury agents but ultimately refused to proceed with the scheme. For his conviction appeal, Kurck raised four points. First, he argued the court erred by dismissing his demurrer to the information, claiming the language was inadequate; however, the court found it sufficient to support the charge of obtaining $5,000 under false pretenses. Second, Kurck contended that the evidence did not support the jury's verdict, asserting a lack of fraudulent representation and that he did not receive any of the $5,000. The court found merit in the circumstantial evidence indicating that Kurck and Roberts employed a unified scheme to defraud James, suggesting Kurck likely benefited from the proceeds. All distinctions between principals and accessories before the fact have been eliminated by Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-118 (Repl. 1964). In the context of the 'green money racket money press' scheme involving the appellant and Ira Coleman Roberts, it is evident that James was misled into believing his money was in the press, which influenced his decision to let Roberts leave with the bag containing the money. The trial court's decision to allow the introduction of photographs of Roberts was deemed appropriate, as multiple witnesses, including Sgt. James Honeycutt and Trooper Carroll Page, confirmed the identity of the person in the photographs as Roberts. Additionally, the testimonies of witnesses regarding other transactions were permitted to establish the appellant’s identity, scheme, purpose, intent, design, and motive. This aligns with established case law that allows such evidence for these purposes. Trooper Page testified to the appellant's understanding of the scheme, and Mrs. Bushman corroborated this by noting similar interactions with the appellant. Given these circumstances, the trial court's rulings were upheld, and the appeal was affirmed. Justice Brown was disqualified from the case.