State v. Delcambre
1991 Wash. LEXIS 75, 116 Wash.2d 444, 805 P.2d 233 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The crime of welfare fraud, defined in RCW 74.08.331, is a distinct substantive offense that requires the mental state of 'knowledge,' satisfied by the statutory term 'willfully.' It does not require proof of the 'intent to deprive' that is an essential element of general theft under RCW 9A.56.020.
Facts:
- Charlette and Nolan Delcambre, a married couple, received public assistance benefits from the state of Washington.
- The state alleged the Delcambres obtained these benefits by means of a willfully false statement or a willful failure to reveal a material fact affecting their eligibility.
- As a result of their actions, the Delcambres obtained public assistance to which they were not entitled.
- The amount of public assistance improperly obtained was sufficient to classify the offense as first-degree theft.
Procedural Posture:
- Charlette and Nolan Delcambre were charged by information with first-degree theft by welfare fraud in a Washington trial court.
- The Delcambres waived a jury trial, and the case was tried before a judge on the basis of stipulated exhibits.
- The trial court found the Delcambres guilty as charged.
- The Delcambres filed a motion to arrest the judgment, arguing the charging information was fatally defective because it failed to allege 'intent to deprive' as an element. The trial court denied the motion.
- The Delcambres appealed their convictions to the Washington Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Delcambres then petitioned the Supreme Court of Washington for review.
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 welfare fraud under RCW 74.08.331 require the state to prove 'intent to deprive' as an essential element of the offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Utter, J.
No. The crime of welfare fraud does not require 'intent to deprive' as an essential element. The court held that welfare fraud is a distinct substantive crime, separate from the general theft statutes. The welfare fraud statute, RCW 74.08.331, defines its own mental state requirement with the term 'willfully,' which under Washington law (RCW 9A.08.010(4)) is satisfied if a person acts 'knowingly.' The court reasoned that the Legislature created a separate statute for welfare fraud, indicating its intent for it to be an independent offense, not merely another means of committing theft. The reference to the theft statutes, established in State v. Sass, applies only for determining the penalty based on the monetary amount involved, not for incorporating the substantive elements of theft, such as 'intent to deprive.' The court found this interpretation supported by precedent like State v. Holmes and persuasive authority from other jurisdictions, such as the Kansas case State v. Micheaux. Therefore, an information charging welfare fraud in the language of the statute is sufficient.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the elements of welfare fraud in Washington, establishing a lower mens rea (mental state) requirement than for general theft. By holding that 'knowledge' is sufficient and 'intent to deprive' is not required, the court makes it easier for the state to prosecute welfare fraud cases. The ruling reinforces the principle that specific criminal statutes stand on their own and are not automatically supplemented by the elements of more general offenses, even when the statutes are linked for penalty purposes. This solidifies the status of welfare fraud as a distinct crime focused on the knowing deception of the welfare system, rather than on the classic larcenous intent to steal.
