State v. Archie
943 P.2d 537, 123 N.M. 503, 1997 NMCA 058 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Embezzlement occurs when a person who has been lawfully entrusted with property converts it to a use other than that authorized by the owner with the fraudulent intent to deprive the owner thereof; this includes destroying the property to achieve a personal end, even if the converter does not gain a direct financial benefit.
Facts:
- Andre Archie was on probation, and a condition of his probation was that he remain within 150 feet of his telephone.
- To ensure compliance, the State of New Mexico required Archie to wear an electronic monitoring device (EMD) on his ankle.
- Archie signed a written 'EMD Wearer’s Agreement' in which he acknowledged the EMD was state property and accepted full responsibility for its care and return.
- The agreement specified that if the EMD was damaged or lost, Archie could be charged with embezzlement.
- Contrary to the agreement, Archie removed the EMD from his ankle, damaging it.
- Archie then threw the damaged EMD, valued between $250 and $2500, into a field.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of New Mexico charged Andre Archie with embezzlement.
- Following a trial to the court without a jury (a bench trial) in a New Mexico district court (trial court), Archie was convicted of embezzlement.
- Archie, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the New Mexico Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), with the State of New Mexico as the appellee.
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 probationer who removes, damages, and discards a state-owned electronic monitoring device (EMD) commit embezzlement by converting entrusted property to his own use with fraudulent intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Bosson, Judge
Yes. A probationer who removes, damages, and discards a state-owned EMD commits embezzlement because the State entrusted the device to him for a specific purpose, and by throwing it away to evade monitoring, he converted it to his own unauthorized purpose with fraudulent intent. The court reasoned that 'entrustment' does not require a formal fiduciary relationship but occurs whenever property is surrendered to another with confidence regarding its care and use, as established here by the probation agreement. The court defined 'converting to his own use' broadly to mean using property for any purpose other than that authorized by the owner; by throwing the EMD away to end the State's ability to monitor his movements, Archie was using the EMD for his own purpose. Finally, fraudulent intent was reasonably inferred from Archie's surreptitious actions, as he knew the EMD belonged to the State and that he was not free to dispose of it.
Analysis:
This decision broadens the application of New Mexico's embezzlement statute beyond traditional commercial or employment contexts. It establishes that 'entrustment' can occur in custodial situations like probation and that 'conversion to one's own use' does not require the defendant to derive a pecuniary benefit from the property. The ruling solidifies that interfering with an owner's rights by destroying property for a personal, non-financial motive (like evading surveillance) satisfies the conversion element, making it easier to prosecute embezzlement in cases involving the misuse or destruction of conditionally-provided property.
