State v. Stahl
93 N.M. 62, 596 P.2d 275 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an employee to be guilty of embezzlement, the property taken must have been committed to the employee's care, use, or disposal by reason of their employment. Merely having physical access or proximity to the property, without being entrusted with its control, constitutes larceny, not embezzlement.
Facts:
- The defendant worked as a clerk at a store which used a locked drop-box for cash deposits.
- Only the store manager had the keys to the drop-box.
- Before the defendant's shift began, another clerk placed money from a register into the locked drop-box.
- The defendant started his midnight shift, during which he was 'in charge of the whole store,' with one active cash register containing $50 to $75.
- The defendant had no permission or authority to access, possess, or use the money inside the drop-box.
- At 3:00 a.m., the defendant was absent from the store.
- The drop-box had been pried open and a total of $612 was missing from both the drop-box and the register.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a trial court with embezzlement of over $100.
- During the trial, the defendant's counsel made a motion for a directed verdict, arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove he was entrusted with over $100.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- The defendant was convicted of the charge.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the New Mexico Court of Appeals.
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 an employee's general responsibility for a store during a shift constitute 'entrustment' of money secured in a locked drop-box, to which the employee has no authorized access, for the purposes of an embezzlement charge?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, Chief Judge
No. An employee's general responsibility for the premises does not constitute entrustment of property that is specifically secured and withheld from their control. To be convicted of embezzlement, an accused must have been entrusted with the property they are accused of stealing. 'Entrust' means to commit or surrender property to another's care, use, or disposal. Here, the undisputed facts show the money in the drop-box was not committed to the defendant's care; it was handled exclusively by the manager, and the defendant was specifically excluded from having anything to do with it. The defendant merely had physical proximity to the box as an incident of his employment. Therefore, his taking of the money from the drop-box constitutes larceny, not embezzlement, because the element of entrustment is absent. Since the State could not prove he was entrusted with over $100 (the amount in the register was less), the embezzlement conviction must be reversed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between embezzlement and larceny within an employment context. It establishes that a general grant of responsibility, such as being 'in charge of the store,' does not automatically extend to entrustment of all property on the premises, especially items secured from the employee's access. The decision solidifies the principle that the core element of embezzlement is the breach of a specific trust relationship concerning the property converted. Future prosecutions for embezzlement will require evidence showing the employee was given lawful possession or control over the specific property, not just an opportunity to access it.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Stahl