MICHAEL J. WARNER v. UNITED STATES, 124 A.3d 79 (2015)

Citation: MICHAEL J. WARNER v. UNITED STATES, 124 A.3d 79 (2015)
Parent Document: MICHAEL J. WARNER v. UNITED STATES, 124 A.3d 79 (2015)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2015-09-17
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2959655/michael-j-warner-v-united-states/ ↗

Full Text

1,169 chars

8
        See Youssef v. United States, 27 A.3d 1202, 1207-08 (D.C. 2011) (“scheme
or systematic course of conduct” must be “composed of at least two acts”);
CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (hereinafter,
“CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS”) § 5.200 (“Fraud”) (5th ed. rev. 2014) (scheme or
systematic course of conduct requires a “pattern of behavior . . . . more than an
isolated act”).
      9
          D.C. Code § 22-3221 (b).
      10
        D.C. Code § 22-3221 (c); see Hoff v. Wiley Rein, LLP, 110 A.3d 561, 565
(D.C. 2015) (“A mere ‘prophesy or prediction of something’ that is ‘hoped’ for ‘or
expected to occur in the future is not actionable upon its nonoccurrence.’”)
(quoting Bennett v. Kiggins, 377 A.2d 57, 61 (D.C. 1977)).
      11
           D.C. Code § 22-3201 (3); see also § 22-3222 (b)(2) (“some value”).
      12
        See D.C. Code § 22-3221 (a) (defining fraud in the first degree as a fraud
by which the perpetrator “obtains property of another or causes another to lose
property”). In this respect, second-degree fraud can be viewed as analogous to
attempted first-degree fraud.
                                          13

Other Sections in This Document (274)

Full Text