People v. Casas
184 Cal. App. 4th 1242, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 742, 109 Cal. Rptr. 3d 811 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of embezzlement does not require an intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property; an intent to temporarily deprive is sufficient if the defendant's use of the property significantly interferes with the owner's rights and enjoyment.
Facts:
- Jorge Jose Casas, a car salesman, assisted customer Clifford B. with purchasing a new truck.
- As part of the deal, Clifford B. traded in his old truck and was to make a $1,500 downpayment.
- Casas followed Clifford B. home in the trade-in vehicle to collect the downpayment, which was a $1,000 check and $500 in cash.
- Instead of immediately returning to the dealership, Casas took the trade-in vehicle and the downpayment.
- Over the next two days, Casas did not show up for work and used the vehicle to drive nearly 400 miles.
- During this time, Casas used the $500 cash portion of the downpayment to purchase drugs for his personal use.
- Two days later, Casas returned to the dealership with the trade-in vehicle and the check, but not the cash.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Jorge Jose Casas in trial court with embezzlement and driving a vehicle without the owner's permission.
- A jury convicted Casas on the embezzlement charge but deadlocked on the vehicle charge, for which the court declared a mistrial.
- The jury also found true the allegations of a prior serious felony conviction and a prior prison term.
- The trial court sentenced Casas to five years in state prison.
- Casas (appellant) appealed his embezzlement conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
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 the crime of embezzlement require proof of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property, or is an intent to temporarily deprive the owner sufficient for a conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Ramirez, P. J.
No. The crime of embezzlement does not require proof of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property; an intent to temporarily deprive the owner is sufficient. The court reconciled conflicting lines of case law by focusing on the core element of the offense: the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been entrusted. The court reasoned that the necessary criminal intent exists whenever a person uses entrusted property for their own purposes in a way that significantly interferes with the owner's enjoyment or use of that property, regardless of the duration. In this case, Casas's use of the dealership's vehicle to travel 400 miles over two days and his use of the cash downpayment to buy drugs constituted a significant interference with the owner's property rights, thereby satisfying the intent element for embezzlement even if he intended to eventually return the vehicle.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant inconsistency in California embezzlement law regarding the required mental state (mens rea). By holding that an intent to temporarily deprive is sufficient when coupled with a significant interference with the owner's rights, the court lowers the burden for prosecutors. This moves the focus of embezzlement from a traditional theft-based intent to permanently steal, to an intent based on a fraudulent breach of trust. The ruling clarifies that the key to the crime is the unauthorized, self-serving use of entrusted property, and future legal arguments will likely center on what constitutes a 'significant interference' with the owner's property rights.
