State v. Brooks
877 P.2d 557, 117 N.M. 751 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the single-larceny doctrine, when a defendant is charged with multiple counts of embezzlement for a series of takings, the question of whether the acts were motivated by separate, independent impulses or were part of a single, sustained criminal scheme is a question of fact for the jury.
Facts:
- In April 1989, Rental Management Services (“RMS”) hired Larry Brooks as a bookkeeper.
- Brooks's responsibilities included collecting rent payments and depositing them into the RMS bank account.
- Over a seven-week period, more than $3000 in cash was taken from seven separate rental accounts on six different days before being deposited.
- Three of these takings occurred on the same day and were withheld from a single deposit.
- In August 1989, the owner of RMS, William Robinson, discovered the missing funds and hired a private investigator.
- During a polygraph examination administered by the investigator, Brooks confessed to taking the money.
- Brooks later signed two written statements admitting to the takings.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Larry Brooks in a trial court with eight separate counts of embezzlement.
- Brooks filed pre-trial motions to merge all counts into a single charge under the single-larceny doctrine, which the trial court denied.
- A first trial resulted in an acquittal on one count and a mistrial on the remaining seven counts after the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict.
- At a second trial on the seven remaining counts, the jury convicted Brooks of five fourth-degree felonies and two misdemeanors.
- Brooks, as appellant, appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's convictions.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court, as the state's highest court, granted Brooks's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the case.
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 single-larceny doctrine require a trial court to instruct the jury to determine whether a series of takings constituted separate offenses, each with its own criminal intent, or were part of a single, continuous scheme motivated by one sustained criminal intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Ransom, Justice
Yes. When the facts show a series of takings that could be interpreted as either separate crimes or part of a broader scheme, it is fundamental error for the trial court not to instruct the jury on the single-larceny doctrine. The prosecution's decision to bring separate charges does not preclude the defendant from arguing that the acts were part of a single plan. Citing State v. Allen and State v. Pedroncelli, the court reaffirmed that whether successive takings are the result of separate impulses or a single, sustained criminal intent is a factual question for the jury to decide. Furthermore, as a matter of law based on the reasoning in State v. Klasner, the three takings withheld from a single day's deposit constitute only one offense and should have been prosecuted as a single count. The failure to properly instruct the jury deprived Brooks of his right to have the jury consider his theory of the case.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the single-larceny doctrine to embezzlement cases and establishes that the defendant's intent is the determinative factor. It clarifies that a defendant has the right to a jury instruction on this theory, even when the prosecution chooses to charge each taking as a separate count. The ruling places a check on prosecutorial discretion by preventing the stacking of charges for what may be a single criminal episode, thereby forcing the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each act was the result of a new and independent criminal impulse. This case distinguishes the intent analysis for larceny from the act-based analysis used in sex crime cases, creating separate doctrinal paths.
