P v. Hartley (6th Dist.) Refusal to Pay Cabbie Was a "Transaction Gone Bad", Not Theft By False Pretenses

Mr. Hartley went out for drinks after work one night.  Later on he called a cab to drive him home.  When the cabbie was unsure of the route, Hartley gave him directions (though the parties differ as to what were those directions).  

The men started to bicker when the cabbie went straight at an intersection at which Hartley claimed he told the cabbie to turn.  Hartley accused the cabbie of running up the fare and stated he was not going to pay.  He then demanded the cabbie stop and let him out.  The cabbie let Hartley out and followed Hartley as he walked home, demanding he pay the fare.  Hartley never paid.  

Based on these events, Hartley was charged with, and convicted of, petty theft of labor by false pretenses.  He appealed.

The Sixth District reverses.  

The issue is whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that Hartley had the intent to deceive the cabbie in order to get a free ride (the transportation equivalent of the old "dine and dash"). The panel answers the question "no".  On these facts it is a temporal question.  The evidence shows that by hailing getting into the cab, Hartley made a representation that he would pay the cabbie for a ride home.  The cabbie, obviously, relied on this representation when giving Hartley a ride.  It is also irrefragable that, at some point, Hartley formed an intent not to pay.  The question is whether, after forming the intent not to pay, Hartley continued to represent he would pay in order steal the cabbie's services.  

Because Hartley told the cabbie, once the disputed turn was missed, or not missed, that he thought the cabbie was unethically running up the fare and was not going to pay, there is insufficient evidence Hartley ever possessed the required intent.  Once Hartley believed the cabbie had intentionally missed the turn, he announced he was not going to pay and wanted out.  It would be unreasonable to find, from the evidence here, that Hartley had any intent not to pay prior to the intersection of contention.  

Using the "dine and dash" analogy, here the defendant did not order a bowl of soup with the intent to consume it and leave without paying.  Instead he ordered a bowl of soup, intending to consume it and pay for it, but after finding what he (correctly or not) believed to be a fly in the bowl, stopped eating and refused to pay the bill.  As the panel says, this is a "transaction gone bad", not a crime.