Morgan v. Commonwealth
1932 Ky. LEXIS 352, 47 S.W.2d 543, 242 Ky. 713 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee who is given exclusive control over property, such that they are the only person with actual access to it, has legal possession of that property; therefore, a wrongful conversion of that property constitutes embezzlement, not larceny.
Facts:
- The Western Union Telegraph Company placed appellant Farris in full charge of its office in Irvine, Kentucky.
- Farris was given the combination to the office safe, and he was the only person with actual knowledge of it; a sealed copy was stored at a main office, not to be opened during his employment.
- Farris was also given the keys to a portable steel box inside the safe, where he was required to store the company's daily funds.
- On July 5, 1930, the safe was found broken open and the steel box, containing approximately $90 of the company's money, was missing.
- The empty steel box was later discovered in a field near Farris's boarding house.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth indicted Farris for the offense of grand larceny in the state trial court.
- At trial, Farris made a motion for a peremptory instruction, arguing the evidence did not support a larceny charge.
- The trial court denied Farris's motion.
- A jury convicted Farris of grand larceny and sentenced him to two years in the penitentiary.
- Farris (appellant) appealed the conviction to the state's highest court, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion for a peremptory instruction.
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 an employee's conversion of funds, over which he has exclusive control as the only person with actual knowledge of the safe's combination, constitute the crime of larceny?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Dietzman
No. The employee's conversion of funds under these circumstances constitutes embezzlement, not larceny. The court reasoned that larceny requires a trespassory taking from the owner's possession, while embezzlement is the wrongful conversion of property already lawfully in the defendant's possession. Here, Farris had legal possession, not mere custody, of the funds because he was in full charge of the office and was the only person with actual, exclusive access to the safe. Although the company could potentially learn the combination, its intent was for Farris to maintain control and possession until the funds were forwarded. Because the evidence established that the possession of the funds was in Farris at the time of conversion, the crime was embezzlement. Since larceny and embezzlement are distinct offenses, a conviction for larceny cannot be sustained on facts that prove embezzlement.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the fine but critical distinction between larceny and embezzlement, which hinges on the legal concepts of possession versus custody. The decision establishes that an employee's level of authority and exclusive control over property can elevate their status from a mere custodian to a legal possessor. This precedent forces prosecutors to be precise when charging a defendant, as a conviction for larceny cannot stand if the facts legally constitute embezzlement, and vice versa. The ruling underscores that the legal status of the property at the precise moment of conversion is determinative of the crime committed.
