State vs. Hamma, 569 S.W.2d 289 (Mo. App. 1978) (full-text).
Appellate Court Proceedings Edit
The defendant was accused of stealing by deceit. On appeal he contended that the information did not state conduct constituting the crime charged. The defendant was accused of intentionally stealing $800 by deceit by obtaining someone else's ATM card and PIN number and taking money out of the machine at $50 per withdrawal.
The defendant contended that he made no representation, let alone a fraudulent representation, and argued that the offense required a verbal misrepresentation to the party defrauded. The court rejected that argument, stating that a misrepresentation could consist of any act, word, symbol, or token calculated and intended to deceive. The court held that the deceit may be made either expressly or by implication. Moreover, the court held that the fraudulent manipulation of an automatic teller machine is analogous to the use of stolen credit cards.