People v. Traster
111 Cal. App. 4th 1377, 4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 680 (2003) (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a victim transfers possession of money to a defendant for a specific purpose with no intent to transfer ownership (title) of the money itself, the defendant's fraudulent appropriation of the funds constitutes theft by trick, not theft by false pretenses. If the defendant never successfully obtains possession of the funds, the crime is attempted theft by trick.
Facts:
- Kevin D. Traster worked as a computer administrator for the law firm of Demler, Armstrong and Rowland.
- In April 1999, Traster falsely informed the firm that it needed to purchase Microsoft licenses for $37,290.94 from a company called Billpoint.
- The firm's partners authorized the purchase and gave Traster the company credit card specifically to acquire the licenses from the named vendor.
- Traster used the credit card to direct a payment for that amount to his own company, Pen, Paper, Mouse Ink, through the Billpoint payment processing service.
- A few months later, Traster was hired as a computer systems operator by the Demenno/Kerdoon Company.
- In October 1999, Traster falsely represented to Demenno/Kerdoon that it needed Microsoft licenses and that he could acquire them for $134,420.
- Demenno/Kerdoon authorized the purchase and gave Traster three separate checks totaling over $132,000, which he cashed.
- Traster never purchased any licenses for Demenno/Kerdoon and later admitted to company officers that he had spent the money.
Procedural Posture:
- The People filed an information charging Kevin D. Traster with grand theft by embezzlement and false pretenses against Demenno/Kerdoon Company (Count I) and Demler, Armstrong & Rowland (Count II).
- During trial in the court of first instance, the court granted the prosecutor's request to delete the embezzlement charges, leaving only the charges of theft by false pretenses.
- A jury convicted Traster on both counts of grand theft by false pretenses.
- Traster, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a conviction for grand theft by false pretenses proper when a victim provides money to a defendant for a specific purpose, such as purchasing goods on the victim's behalf, without intending to transfer title to the money itself to the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
No. A conviction for grand theft by false pretenses is improper because the victims intended to part with possession of the money only for a specific purpose, not to transfer title of the money to Traster. The core distinction between theft by false pretenses and larceny by trick is whether the victim intends to pass title to the property. Theft by false pretenses requires that the victim intend to transfer both possession and title. In contrast, larceny by trick occurs when the victim is fraudulently induced to pass possession of property but intends to retain title. Here, both the law firm and Demenno/Kerdoon provided funds to Traster for the sole, specific purpose of purchasing Microsoft licenses on their behalf. They never intended for Traster to become the unconditional owner of the money. Therefore, the evidence does not support the element of title transfer required for theft by false pretenses. The correct legal theory is theft by trick. Regarding Count II (the law firm), Traster never gained possession of the money because the transaction was cancelled, so the crime was only attempted theft by trick.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the technical distinctions between different common law theft offenses, even though they are consolidated under a single modern 'theft' statute. It clarifies that the victim's intent regarding the transfer of title is the determinative factor distinguishing theft by trick from theft by false pretenses. For future cases, this means prosecutors must carefully analyze the facts to ensure the charged theory of theft matches the evidence, particularly concerning the victim's intent. A conviction based on an incorrect theory, while potentially harmless error, can be modified on appeal, as seen here where one charge was reduced from a completed crime to an attempt.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Traster