State v. Gisclair
382 So. 2d 914 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The services of employees are not considered "anything of value" subject to ownership by an employer for the crime of theft, nor are they "movables" for the crime of unauthorized use, under Louisiana statutes, in the absence of specific legislative provisions to that effect.
Facts:
- Clyde A. "Rock" Gisclair served as the assessor for St. Charles Parish.
- Between November 1, 1974, and July 1, 1975, several employees from the parish assessor's office assisted Gisclair in the renovation of his personal camp.
- This renovation work was performed by the employees during their regular working hours.
- The employees received only their standard salaries from the state for the work performed on Gisclair's camp, with no additional compensation from Gisclair.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 3, 1977, Clyde A. Gisclair was charged by indictment with two counts of theft in violation of R.S. 14:67 and one count of public payroll fraud in violation of R.S. 14:138 in a Louisiana trial court.
- Gisclair waived his right to a jury trial and was tried by the trial judge.
- The trial judge found Gisclair not guilty on the charge of theft and public payroll fraud.
- Instead, the trial judge found Gisclair guilty of unauthorized use of movables, in violation of R.S. 14:68, which is a responsive verdict to a charge of theft, for the services of state employees.
- Gisclair filed a motion for a new trial, arguing the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence because the judge misinterpreted R.S. 14:68.
- The trial court denied Gisclair's motion for a new trial on January 26, 1979.
- Gisclair was sentenced to pay a fine of $100.00.
- The defendant's application for writs of review was granted by 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 a public official's use of state employees for personal benefit during working hours constitute the theft of "services" as an "anything of value" or the "unauthorized use of movables" under Louisiana's general criminal statutes?
Opinions:
Majority - Dixon, Chief Justice
No, a public official's use of state employees for personal benefit during working hours does not constitute the theft of "services" as an "anything of value" or the "unauthorized use of movables" under Louisiana's general criminal statutes. The court first noted that the trial judge correctly found insufficient proof of specific intent to permanently deprive for the theft charge. While R.S. 14:2(2) gives "anything of value" the broadest possible construction to include services, the parish and the state cannot, as a matter of law, "own" the services of their employees because human effort and work are not subject to ownership by an employer (citing Gonsalves v. Hodgson and Chappell v. United States). In the absence of a specific statute making the stealing of labor or services a crime, a conviction for theft of services cannot lie under the present theft statute (R.S. 14:67). Furthermore, the services of employees are not "movables" under R.S. 14:68 (unauthorized use of movables). This statute, commonly known as the "joy riding statute," was intended to cover specific tangible objects like vehicles, farm implements, and livestock, as indicated by its legislative history and Reporter's Comments. Since employee services are not tangible objects, they cannot be the subject of a charge of unauthorized use of movables. Therefore, no evidence supported an essential element for either the greater offense of theft or the lesser included offense of unauthorized use of movables, requiring reversal of the conviction.
Concurring - Marcus, Justice
I concur in the judgment reversing the conviction. While I disagree with the majority's conclusion that "movable" in La.R.S. 14:68 includes only tangible objects, believing it can include incorporeal movables, I agree with the fundamental principle that labor of an employee is not a thing subject to ownership by an employer. As the majority noted, if anyone owns human effort and work, it is the employee himself, and there was no charge that the services were stolen from the employees in this case. Accordingly, the conviction cannot stand.
Analysis:
This case highlights the importance of strict statutory construction in criminal law, particularly regarding property definitions. It clarifies that, absent specific legislative intent, concepts like "services" and "labor" are not inherently treated as "property" or "movables" susceptible to general theft or unauthorized use statutes. The ruling effectively identified a gap in Louisiana's criminal code concerning the misuse of employee time by public officials, suggesting that specific legislation would be required to prosecute such conduct as theft or unauthorized use. It reinforces the common law principle that an employer typically does not 'own' an employee's labor in a proprietary sense that would enable charges of theft against a third party or the employee himself.
