Summary of State v. Bridgeforth
S. Ct. Arizona, 1988

Relevant Facts: While in prison, df, developed a plan to obtain money from prospective borrowers by advertising, through a brokerage business, the he could arrange loans.  Df charged $275 plus 9% commission for loans up to $30,000.  The phone number in the advertisement was the home phone of a telephone operator he befriended.  If the loan was not arranged, the applicant was entitled to a refund of the fee.  Not one loan was secured nor one fee refunded.

Legal Issue(s): Whether a showing that the df committed the crimes as charged knowingly or intentionally?

Court’s Holding: Knowingly.

Procedure: Trial Ct conviction 9 cts of fraud.  Sentenced to 28 yrs for each. Ct. of App. Affirmed, Affirmed.

Law or Rule(s): that, knowing the purpose of the scheme, the df obtained a benefit; by false pretense.  Knowingly – with respect to conduct or circumstances descried by statute,  means that a person is aware or believes that his conduct is of that nature or that circumstances exist.  It does not require any knowledge of the unlawfulness of the act or omission.

Court Rationale: Drafters of the Arizona Code abandoned the use of the terms specific and general intent.  Instead adopted the use of the four culpable mental states: Intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, criminally negligent, and they replace all previous mental states used in AZ criminal law.  The statute involved had removed the phrase intentionally and left only knowingly as the required mental state.  It was only necessary for the state to prove that the scheme or artifice was intended to defraud and df devised the scheme with the intent to defraud.

Plaintiff’s Argument: The legislature eliminated intentionally from the statute, and left knowingly, therefor intentionally is not an element of the crime.

Defendant’s Argument: Intent to defraud remains an element of the crime, and requires a specific mental state.