State v. Chapman Dodge Center, Inc.
428 So.2d 413 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for a crime requiring fraudulent intent, such as unauthorized use of a movable, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the requisite criminal intent (mens rea). This intent cannot be imputed to a corporate owner absent personal involvement, nor to the corporation itself without evidence of complicity by its officers or board of directors.
Facts:
- Chapman Dodge Center, Inc., a car dealership, experienced significant financial difficulty for about a year before its closure.
- The dealership followed the usual practice of collecting sales tax money from customers with the promise of remitting it to the state to secure permanent license plates.
- Instead of paying the sales taxes, the dealership retained the funds, resulting in customers not receiving their permanent license plates.
- John Swindle was the ultimate owner of the dealership through a series of holding companies but resided in Mississippi and was only present at the dealership about twice a month.
- Donald Barrett, the general manager, and James Duvall, the accountant, were in charge of the daily operations and made decisions about which bills to pay.
- Swindle testified he had instructed Duvall to pay all taxes owed, and other witnesses testified that Barrett had told Swindle that all taxes had been paid.
- After the dealership closed on September 12, 1980, it was discovered that registration forms for 180-190 cars had not been filed and the taxes had not been paid.
- Upon being notified by the district attorney, John Swindle personally paid approximately $11,000 to cover the unpaid sales taxes for certain customers.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Chapman Dodge Center, Inc. and John Swindle by bill of information with 20 counts of theft.
- The case was tried before a six-person jury in the state trial court.
- The jury found both defendants guilty of the lesser included offense of unauthorized use of a movable on all 20 counts.
- The trial court sentenced Chapman Dodge to pay fines and court costs, and sentenced John Swindle to fines, court costs, and a suspended term of imprisonment with supervised probation and restitution.
- The defendants, Chapman Dodge Center, Inc. and John Swindle, appealed their convictions and sentences to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 state's evidence sufficiently prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants, an individual owner and his corporation, possessed the required fraudulent intent for a conviction of unauthorized use of a movable?
Opinions:
Majority - Sexton, J.
No, the state's evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either John Swindle or Chapman Dodge Center, Inc. possessed the requisite fraudulent intent for unauthorized use of a movable. For defendant Swindle, the record is devoid of evidence that he ordered, implied, or knew that the sales taxes were being withheld; in fact, the evidence suggests he ordered them to be paid and was told they had been. For the corporate defendant, Chapman Dodge, criminal intent cannot be established because the record reveals no evidence of complicity by its officers or board of directors in the decision to retain the funds. Without proof of mens rea for either defendant, the convictions cannot stand under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia.
Dissenting - Lemmon, J.
Yes, the evidence was sufficient to hold the corporation criminally liable. The evidence supports the conclusion that a high managerial agent, vested with authority over day-to-day operations, knowingly committed a criminal offense on behalf of and for the benefit of the corporation while acting within the scope of his employment. Under these circumstances, the corporation should be held criminally responsible for the acts of its agent.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its examination of corporate criminal liability within Louisiana's civil law tradition, contrasting it with the common law's broader use of vicarious liability. The court establishes a high bar for proving corporate mens rea, suggesting that the criminal acts of an employee, even a manager, cannot be imputed to the corporation without evidence of complicity from high-level management like the board of directors or officers. This decision reinforces the primacy of proving specific intent for both individuals and corporate entities, making it more difficult to prosecute corporations for intent-based crimes based solely on the actions of lower-level agents.
