State v. Ripley
889 So.2d 1214, 2004 WL 2889752, 2004 La. App. LEXIS 3057 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The failure to pay a pre-existing contractual debt does not constitute criminal theft by fraud, even if the debtor tenders a check for the antecedent debt that is subsequently dishonored, as this conduct alone is insufficient to prove the requisite criminal intent to permanently deprive.
Facts:
- On August 30, 1999, Liberty Works Radio Network (LWRN) entered into a 'time brokerage agreement' with Charles Redden's company to lease a radio station for $3,500 per month plus expenses.
- Beginning in late 2000, LWRN fell behind on its monthly payments to Redden.
- By July 2001, LWRN was approximately six months in arrears, and Redden was referred to Paul Ripley, Jr., who was handling LWRN's financial problems.
- In August 2001, with LWRN owing approximately $30,000, Redden threatened to shut down the station.
- To prevent the shutdown, Ripley agreed to make an immediate partial payment of $15,000 on the pre-existing debt.
- On September 29, 2001, Ripley sent Redden a personal check for $15,000.
- A few days later, the check was returned to Redden for 'uncollected funds,' meaning a deposit Ripley made had not yet cleared.
- Despite the returned check, Redden allowed LWRN to continue operating the station until he finally shut it down on January 15, 2002.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Ripley, Jr. was charged by the State of Louisiana with theft by fraud in a state trial court.
- Ripley's motion to quash the bill of information was denied by the trial court.
- Ripley waived his right to a jury and proceeded with a bench trial.
- The trial court denied Ripley's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal made at the close of the state's case.
- The trial court found Ripley guilty and sentenced him to five years at hard labor, with four years suspended, and ordered restitution.
- Ripley, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, which is an intermediate appellate court.
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 defendant's failure to pay a pre-existing contractual debt, coupled with tendering a check for part of that debt which is returned for 'uncollected funds,' constitute sufficient evidence of fraudulent intent to permanently deprive another of a thing of value to sustain a conviction for theft?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, J.
No. The defendant's failure to satisfy a pre-existing contractual debt, even by means of a dishonored check, is insufficient to prove the fraudulent intent required for a criminal theft conviction. The court reasoned that this case is fundamentally a civil breach of contract dispute, not a criminal matter. Citing State v. Bias, the court held that failure to make rental payments as agreed does not constitute 'use without consent' or 'use by fraudulent practices.' Redden was fully aware of LWRN's financial distress for months and made a business decision to allow the station to continue operating even after the check was returned, undermining the state's theory that his consent was obtained through fraud. The evidence did not establish that Ripley acted with the specific criminal intent to permanently deprive Redden of the station's airtime; rather, it depicted a failed business transaction and an inability to pay a debt.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between civil liability for breach of contract and criminal culpability for theft. It establishes that using the criminal justice system to collect a civil debt is improper unless prosecutors can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was a specific intent to defraud at the time the property or service was obtained. The ruling protects individuals involved in failing business ventures from facing criminal charges for simple non-payment of an antecedent debt, clarifying that a subsequent bad check for that debt is not, by itself, sufficient evidence of a fraudulent scheme.
