In this obtaining property by false pretenses case, there was sufficient evidence that the victim was a “person within this State” as the term is used in G.S. 14-100(a) as well as sufficient evidence of the value of the property at issue.  Addressing what it characterized as an issue of first impression, the court determined that even if it is an essential element of a violation of G.S. 14-100 that the victim of the offense by “a person within this State” as that phrase is used in the statute, an issue that the court did not decide, the element was satisfied in this case involving AT&T.  The defendant’s fraud scheme involved the resale of iPhones falsely obtained from AT&T, and the court reasoned that because the phones came from a store operated by AT&T located in North Carolina, AT&T was operating as “a person within this state” for purposes of the offense and the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

The court went on to conclude that the State met its burden of proving that the value of the iPhones falsely obtained by the defendant was at least $100,000.  The court noted that North Carolina case law has defined the term “value” for purposes of obtaining property by false pretenses to be synonymous with “fair market value” and explained that evidence presented at trial showed that the actual retail value of the iPhones as calculated by the price AT&T paid to its supplier for the phones met or exceeded $100,000.  The court discussed State v. Kornegay and State v. Hines in the process of rejecting the defendant’s argument that the value issue should take into account net value and setoffs to calculate the particular economic damage to the victim.  The court explained: “Hines establishes that we are only concerned with the gross fair market valuation of the property obtained, not the net gain in value to the criminal.”