
    PEOPLE v. COATS
    Criminal Law — Chucks—-Insufficient Funds — Intent to Defraud —Plea of Guilty — Court’s Duty.
    Intent to defraud is an indispensable condition for criminal liability of one drawing checks without sufficient funds; hence, where defendant asserted at his arraignment that he had intended to cover cheeks he had written with money he was to receive and denied any intent to defraud, but pleaded guilty to the criminal offense of drawing checks without sufficient funds, the court had a duty to explain the elements of the offense charged to defendant and in the absence of an explanation, notwithstanding defendant’s statement that his plea of guilty was understandingly made, he is entitled to a new trial (CL 1948, § 750.131a).
    Appeal from Muskegon, Albert J. Engel, J.
    Submitted Division 3 March 6, 1969, at Grand Rapids.
    (Docket No. 5,488.)
    Decided March 27, 1969.
    Leave to appeal denied May 21, 1969.
    See 382 Mich 755.
    Jeff F. Coats was convicted, on his plea of guilty, of drawing checks without sufficient funds. Defendant appeals.
    Reversed and remanded for new trial.
    
      Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Paid M. Ladas, Prosecuting Attorney, and Fredric A. Grimm, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
    
      White, Spaniola, Knudsen & Stariha, for defendant on appeal.
    BEFORE: Quinn, P. J., and Holbrook and T. M. Burns, JJ.
    Referfnce for Points in Headnote
    21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 486 et seq_.
    
   Per Curiam.

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of drawing checks with insufficient funds in violation of CL 1948, § 750.131a (Stat Ann;1962 Rev §'28.326'[1]).. At the hearing on the plea the defendant stated his intent with respect to these checks was to later cover them with a deposit prior to presentation. Hé stated that there was an intervening incident which prevented him from depositing the necessary funds. At the arraignment the defendant stated his -plea was freely and understandingly made without, promises of leniency.

■ /Defendant asserts on appeal that his plea of guilty was not validly accepted because it was not understanding^ made. He claims that an essential element of' the crime, i.e., with intent to defraud, was not present in the record.

The following .appears on the record of the arraignment : ,

“Defendant: Guilty. But I would like to say it was not with intent to, defraud. * * *
“Defendant: I mean I did write the checks, but I didn’t do it with-' the intent to' try to get away with it. * * *
“Defendant: Well, you see, I have been writing checks, and I would beat that to the. bank. Like I would write a check today and I would get my check tomorrow, and I would take my money to the bank ;o cover the checks. But at this particular time [ didn’t beat them to the bank. * * *
“Defendant: On October 15th my daughter died, ind that put the jinx on -things right there, and that Is why I didn’t cover the checks. * * *
I “The Court: What was your intention when you massed the cheeks, then?
I “Defendant: To put the money in the bank at a Hater daté so that the check would be covered.
H “The Court: Did you intend to get money at the Hime you gave them the check, immediately?
H' “Defendant:, Yes.
“The Court: Did you get it ?
“Defendant: No.
“The Court: What?
“Defendant: No. Like I say, my daughter died — ”

The instant case is similar to the case of People v. Hunn (1965), 1 Mich App 580, 584, wherein we stated:

“The defendant’s statement • at the arraignment indicates he was ignorant of the elements of the crime and therefore believed himself to be guilty, of a criminal offense, merely by the act of cashing a no-account check. When the defendant thus exhibited his ignorance of the nature of the charge, it became the duty of the trial court to explain to the defendant that knowledge and intent were elements of the crime charged, in order to ascertain that the plea of guilty would be understandingly made. Adherence to this important rule is not shown in the | record.”

In 9 ALR3d 719, “Reasonable expectation of payment as affecting offense under worthless check | statutes”, it is stated on pp 720, 721:

“The indispensable condition for criminal liability] under all ‘worthless check’ statutes * * * is that! the defendant have issued the insufficient-fund check! with intent to defraud. If at the time he negotiated! the check the defendant knew that he then had insufficient funds in the bank to pay the check onl presentation in the ordinary course of business buff he reasonably expected that it would be paid onl presentation because’ of, for example, an arrange] ment with the drawee bank, for", credit or with somcf third person for funds, then the essential element of fraudulent intent is lacking and the’ proseeutioi| must fail.”

The assertion at! the arraignment by defendanj when he pled guilty that he wrote the checks witf the intent to cover them with money he claimed to be receiving and his denial of doing it with intent to defraud indicates an ignorance of the nature of the crime. His plea of guilty even though he stated it was understandingly made is not fortified by the record.

The'judgment of"the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for new trial.  