State v. Saylor
1980 Kan. LEXIS 348, 618 P.2d 1166, 228 Kan. 498 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Theft by deception is completed when any employee of a victim entity, acting within the scope of their employment, is actually deceived by and relies upon a defendant's false representation, even if other employees of the same entity are suspicious of the defendant's conduct.
Facts:
- Glenn Lee Saylor was observed by a K-Mart security officer as he moved through the store, placing various items into his shopping cart.
- The security officer saw Saylor take a bottle of glue to a specific area, use it, and then return it to a counter.
- The officer later found a toy chest box, which normally contained a $13.97 toy, in the hardware department; its cover had been recently resealed with glue.
- Saylor returned to the store later that day, placed the resealed box into a shopping cart, and proceeded to a checkout counter.
- Saylor presented the box to the cashier, who, unaware of its true contents, charged him the price listed for the toy chest, $13.97.
- After Saylor left the store, he was stopped in the parking lot, where the box was opened and found to contain merchandise, including chain saws and staple guns, valued at over $500.
Procedural Posture:
- Glenn Lee Saylor was charged with theft by deception in the Kansas district court (trial court).
- A jury convicted Saylor as charged.
- Saylor (appellant) appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals, arguing the court erred by not instructing the jury on attempted theft by deception.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding that because K-Mart was suspicious, it was not actually deceived, and remanded for a new trial on the lesser offense of attempt.
- The State of Kansas (petitioner) sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision from the Supreme Court of Kansas.
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 completed theft by deception occur when a store's checkout cashier relies on a defendant's misrepresentation of an item's contents and value, even if another employee, a security guard, is suspicious of the defendant's scheme?
Opinions:
Majority - Prager, J.
Yes. A completed theft by deception occurs because the element of reliance is satisfied when the victim, acting through an agent, is deceived. In this case, the K-Mart checkout cashier, acting as the store's agent for the transaction, was completely unaware of the defendant's scheme and relied upon the false representation that the box contained only a $13.97 toy. The court distinguished this case from its precedent in State v. Finch, which requires that the victim be actually deceived. Here, while the security guard was suspicious, the cashier who ultimately transferred control of the property to Saylor was actually deceived. The act of deception was consummated at the point of sale, making the crime a completed theft rather than a mere attempt. Therefore, the conviction for the completed offense was proper.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'reliance' element for theft by deception, particularly for corporate or organizational victims. The court establishes that the victim entity does not need to be universally deceived; reliance by the specific agent responsible for parting with the property is sufficient to complete the crime. This precedent prevents defendants from arguing that a victim's internal security measures or suspicions negate the element of deception, thereby reducing a completed theft to an attempt. It solidifies the legal principle that deception targeted at the point of transaction fulfills the statutory requirement, impacting how similar retail theft cases are prosecuted.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Saylor