State v. Moon
2000 Me. 142, 755 A.2d 527, 2000 ME 142 (2000)
Rule of Law:
Evidence that a defendant intended to repay funds taken without authorization is not a defense to theft if the funds were used under circumstances making recovery unlikely, nor is expert testimony regarding common embezzlement schemes relevant if the defendant's conduct otherwise meets the statutory definition of theft.
Facts:
- Moon was recruited to resurrect a fraternity chapter, serving as its treasurer and project manager.
- Over a three-year period, Moon transferred approximately $120,000 from fraternity bank accounts to himself or his company without authorization from the Board of Trustees.
- Moon used these funds to renovate his own real estate property, hoping to obtain residential financing later to repay the fraternity.
- Moon kept a distinct 'accounts receivable' ledger where he accurately recorded every unauthorized transfer he made.
- Moon concealed the transfers from the Board and did not have permission to use the funds.
- Moon failed to secure the necessary financing to cover the taken funds.
- While Moon repaid approximately $100,000, he still owed the fraternity roughly $19,972 at the time of the dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- The State indicted Moon on one count of theft by unauthorized taking or transfer.
- The State subsequently indicted Moon on a second count of theft by misapplication of property.
- The trial court consolidated the two indictments for a single trial.
- A jury in the Superior Court (Penobscot County) found Moon guilty of Class B theft.
- Moon appealed the conviction to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is expert testimony regarding the absence of typical 'embezzlement schemes' admissible to negate criminal intent, and does the statutory definition of 'intent to deprive' include instances where a defendant intends to repay but subjects the funds to a high risk of loss?
Opinions:
Majority - Wathen, C.J.
No, the intent to repay does not negate theft when funds are used in a risky manner, and expert testimony on embezzlement patterns is properly excluded when irrelevant to the statutory elements. The court reasoned that the Maine Criminal Code defines 'intent to deprive' not only as an intent to withhold permanently but also as using property 'under circumstances that make it unlikely that the owner will recover it.' Therefore, even if Moon intended to repay the money, he committed theft by using the funds for a speculative renovation project that made recovery uncertain. Regarding the expert testimony, the court held that the fact that Moon's meticulous record-keeping did not fit the profile of a standard 'embezzlement scheme' was irrelevant. A thief who leaves a paper trail is still a thief if the statutory elements are met, and comparing his actions to other criminals would not assist the jury in determining those elements.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of 'intent to deprive' in white-collar crime and theft statutes. It explicitly rejects the 'borrower's defense'—the argument that the defendant isn't guilty of theft because they intended to pay the money back. By affirming that 'intent to deprive' includes using funds in a way that risks their loss (even if the loss isn't desired), the court lowers the burden for prosecutors in cases involving unauthorized 'loans' taken by employees or fiduciaries. Furthermore, the decision limits the utility of expert witnesses in fraud cases who attempt to use 'profiling' evidence to show a defendant didn't act like a typical criminal. The ruling establishes that statutory definitions supersede behavioral generalizations about how crimes are typically committed.
