State v. Siegel
2001 WL 85530, 778 So.2d 426 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Florida's omnibus theft statute, which includes the common-law crime of embezzlement, a defendant can be guilty of theft even if the criminal intent to deprive the owner of the property is formed after the defendant has already obtained lawful possession of it.
Facts:
- David Paul Siegel was a member of the student government at the University of Central Florida (UCF).
- As part of his official duties, UCF provided Siegel with a university-owned IBM Thinkpad laptop computer for his use.
- Sometime after Siegel took possession of the laptop, UCF officials demanded its return pursuant to university policy.
- Siegel refused to return the laptop computer to UCF upon demand.
- This refusal resulted in Siegel's expulsion from the university.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged David Paul Siegel with grand theft by Information in a state trial court.
- Siegel filed a sworn motion to dismiss the charge pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4).
- The trial court granted Siegel's motion to dismiss.
- The State of Florida, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order of dismissal to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, with Siegel as the appellee.
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 charge of grand theft under Florida's omnibus theft statute fail if the defendant did not form the criminal intent to deprive the owner of the property until after taking lawful possession of it?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, C.J.
No. A charge of grand theft under Florida's omnibus theft statute does not fail simply because the defendant formed the criminal intent after taking lawful possession of the property. The trial court erred by dismissing the case based on the reasoning that Siegel lacked criminal intent at the time he first received the laptop. While crimes like larceny require intent at the time of the taking, Florida's comprehensive theft statute also incorporates the crime of embezzlement. Embezzlement occurs when a person, who is already in lawful possession of property, fraudulently converts it for their own use. The criminal act and intent can arise at the moment of conversion, such as when Siegel allegedly refused to return the laptop upon UCF's demand. Therefore, the state's allegations, if proven, establish a prima facie case for theft by embezzlement, which falls under the current theft statute.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the broad scope of Florida's consolidated theft statute, known as the 'Florida Anti-Fencing Act.' It confirms that the legislature's intent was to eliminate the technical common-law distinctions between different types of theft, such as larceny and embezzlement. By doing so, the court prevents defendants from escaping conviction based on the specific timing of their felonious intent. The ruling solidifies the principle that a lawful bailee can become a thief at the moment they decide to convert the property to their own use and refuse a lawful demand for its return, simplifying prosecution for what was formerly known as embezzlement.
