Lexplug logoLexplug

State v. Maxon

Court of Appeals of Kansas
79 P.3d 202, 32 Kan. App. 2d 67 (2003)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Obtaining property with the owner's express consent does not constitute theft by 'unauthorized control,' even if the owner is mentally vulnerable and their consent is induced by undue influence. Such conduct is more appropriately prosecuted under the specific statute criminalizing mistreatment of a dependent adult, rather than the general theft statute.


Facts:

  • In January 1999, Bea Bergman's husband died, leaving her a multi-million dollar estate. Bergman, who had relied on her husband for financial decisions, was left feeling confused, lost, and suffering from anxiety.
  • Shortly after her husband's death, Bergman came into contact with the Maxon family, who owned a moving company her husband had used.
  • The Maxon family, particularly Joyce Maxon, quickly integrated Bergman into their family, and Bergman began giving them large sums of money and property, totaling over $600,000 in about eight months.
  • In mid-1999, Christopher and Jodi Maxon contracted with Bergman to purchase her house, listed for $177,500, for only $100,000.
  • In October 1999, Christopher Maxon convinced Bergman to write a check for $38,745.34 directly to a car dealership for him to purchase a new Ford truck, which was titled solely in his name.
  • After the relationship soured, Bergman was examined by a psychiatrist who diagnosed her with bipolar disorder with episodes of hypomania, opining that this condition made her vulnerable to influence by others.
  • During the period she was giving money to the Maxons, Bergman also gave substantial gifts to her own daughter, granddaughter, and niece.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Johnson County District Attorney's office charged Christopher and Jodi Maxon in district court with two counts of felony theft and one count of misdemeanor mistreatment of a dependent adult.
  • The theft charges were presented to the jury in the alternative: theft by obtaining unauthorized control or theft by deception.
  • Following a trial, a jury convicted Christopher and Jodi Maxon on all counts.
  • The district court sentenced Jodi Maxon to probation and granted the State's motion for an upward dispositional departure for Christopher Maxon, sentencing him to 38 months in prison.
  • Christopher and Jodi Maxon, as appellants, appealed their convictions and Christopher's sentence to the Court of Appeals of Kansas.

Locked

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 person obtain or exert 'unauthorized control' over property for the purpose of the general theft statute when they accept property from a mentally vulnerable owner who consents to the transfer?


Opinions:

Majority - Johnson, J.

No, a person does not obtain 'unauthorized control' over property for the purpose of the general theft statute when the owner consents to the transfer, even if that consent is the product of undue influence on a mentally vulnerable person. The court reasoned that 'unauthorized control' means control exercised without the owner's consent. Here, Bergman actively and voluntarily participated in the transfers by signing the deed and writing the check. The State argued that her consent was ineffective due to her mental state, but the court declined to judicially create a standard for when mental incapacity negates consent for theft, especially since the legislature had already created a specific statute—mistreatment of a dependent adult—to address this exact type of conduct. The court noted that 'it is improper to prosecute a defendant for a general crime when the facts establish the violation of a specific statute.'



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the boundary between felony theft and the misdemeanor of mistreatment of a dependent adult. It prevents prosecutors from expanding the definition of 'unauthorized control' in the general theft statute to cover cases where a vulnerable person consents to a transaction due to undue influence. The ruling establishes that when a specific statute exists to criminalize particular conduct (financial exploitation of a vulnerable adult), that specific statute must be used, rather than stretching the definition of a more general crime. This reinforces the principle of statutory specificity and provides a clearer warning to potential defendants about what conduct constitutes a particular crime.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Maxon (2003)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"