Commonwealth v. Mills
436 Mass. 387 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant who makes material, false statements of fact to a pension board to retain benefits that would otherwise have to be refunded commits larceny by false pretenses. However, a conviction for larceny cannot be upheld on appeal if the jury was only instructed on a theory of larceny (e.g., traditional larceny) that is not supported by the evidence, even if the evidence could have supported an uninstructed theory (e.g., larceny by false pretenses).
Facts:
- Richard J. Mills, a retired Boston police officer, received an annual accidental disability pension from the city's retirement board.
- As a condition of receiving the pension, Mills was required to file an annual earnings report, signed under the penalties of perjury.
- If a pensioner's earned income exceeded a specified limit, the pensioner was required to refund a portion of the pension benefits received that year.
- For the years 1992, 1993, and 1994, Mills's actual earnings from his private investigation business significantly exceeded the allowable limits.
- In his annual reports for those three years, Mills knowingly and substantially under-reported his earnings to the board.
- As a direct result of Mills's false statements, the board calculated that he had not exceeded his earnings limit and, consequently, never sought a refund of any pension money.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Richard J. Mills, was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of three counts of larceny from the city of Boston retirement board, among other charges.
- Based on five total larceny convictions, the trial judge adjudicated the defendant a 'common and notorious thief' and imposed his sentence.
- The defendant (as appellant) filed a timely appeal to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
- The Appeals Court reversed the judgments on the three larceny counts from the board, entering judgment for the defendant, and vacated the 'common and notorious thief' adjudication.
- The Commonwealth (as appellant) petitioned the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for further appellate review, which the court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant commit larceny by filing false annual earnings reports with a public retirement board to prevent the board from demanding a refund of pension benefits to which the defendant was no longer entitled?
Opinions:
Majority - Spina, J.
Yes, a defendant commits larceny by filing false earnings reports to prevent a pension board from seeking a refund of benefits. While the Massachusetts larceny statute merges traditional larceny, embezzlement, and larceny by false pretenses, the evidence must support the elements of at least one of these theories. The defendant's conduct was not traditional larceny, as there was no trespassory taking of property; he initially received the payments lawfully. It was not embezzlement, because the relationship between the pensioner and the board is that of a debtor-creditor, not a fiduciary one based on trust or confidence. However, the conduct met all the elements of larceny by false pretenses: (1) he made a false statement of fact by under-reporting his income; (2) he knew the statement was false; (3) he intended the board to rely on it; and (4) the board did rely on it, consequently parting with property by not demanding a refund and allowing him to keep money to which he was not entitled. Despite the evidence being sufficient for larceny by false pretenses, the defendant's convictions must be reversed and a new trial ordered because the trial judge only instructed the jury on the elements of traditional larceny, a theory the evidence did not support. A conviction cannot be affirmed when the jury was not instructed on the applicable legal theory of the crime.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of Massachusetts's unified larceny statute, emphasizing that while a general indictment for 'stealing' is permissible, the prosecution's evidence must align with the specific elements of one of the underlying common-law crimes. The decision underscores the critical importance of proper jury instructions; a conviction will be overturned if the jury is instructed on a legal theory unsupported by the facts, even if the facts could have supported a different, uninstructed theory. This holding forces prosecutors to carefully consider which theory of larceny their evidence proves and to ensure that the jury is instructed accordingly. It also reinforces the distinction between a debtor-creditor relationship and a fiduciary relationship in the context of embezzlement.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Mills