United States v. Bowser
532 F.2d 1318 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A staged robbery involving a complicit bank employee constitutes larceny, not embezzlement, because the taking is trespassory and without the consent of the bank as an entity, regardless of the employee's participation.
Facts:
- Curtis Bowser, bank teller Sharon Held, and Robert P. Farrelly conspired to take money from the Crocker Bank through a staged robbery.
- According to their plan, Farrelly entered the bank and handed Held a note threatening bodily harm and demanding money.
- Held, feigning intimidation as part of the conspiracy, gave Farrelly $5,158.37 of the bank's funds.
- Farrelly took the money in an attache case and left the bank.
- Bowser waited outside in a getaway car, which Farrelly joined after exiting the bank.
- Moments after Farrelly left, Held reported to her superior that she had been robbed.
Procedural Posture:
- Curtis Bowser, Sharon Held, and Robert P. Farrelly were jointly charged in a federal district court with entering a bank with intent to commit a felony, bank larceny, and conspiracy.
- All three defendants initially entered pleas of not guilty.
- Subsequently, co-defendants Held and Farrelly withdrew their not guilty pleas and entered pleas of guilty to the conspiracy count.
- The remaining counts against Held and Farrelly were dismissed.
- Appellant Bowser proceeded to a jury trial in the federal district court (the court of first instance).
- The jury found Bowser guilty on all three counts, and he was sentenced.
- Bowser (appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the United States 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 defendant commit bank larceny under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), which requires a trespassory taking, when a bank teller willingly hands over bank funds to a co-conspirator as part of a pre-arranged, staged robbery?
Opinions:
Majority - Christensen, District Judge
Yes. A staged robbery with a complicit bank teller constitutes larceny because the taking is trespassory as against the bank, which did not consent to its money being taken. The court reasoned that while the teller, Sharon Held, was a willing participant, she was acting adversely to the bank's interests, not on its behalf. Her cooperation merely facilitated a trespassory taking and carrying away of bank property. The court distinguished this from embezzlement or false pretenses, where a bank might intend to part with funds due to being duped, as seen in cases like LeMasters v. United States. Instead, the court found the case analogous to United States v. Brown, holding that a teller's complicity, regardless of motive (coercion or willing participation), cannot be construed as the bank's consent. Therefore, from the bank's perspective, the taking was unconsented and trespassory, fulfilling the elements of larceny.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal distinction between bank larceny and embezzlement in cases involving an 'inside job.' It establishes that a bank employee's active collusion does not automatically convert the crime to embezzlement for the outside conspirators. By focusing on the institutional victim's (the bank's) lack of consent, the ruling solidifies that the essential element of a 'trespassory taking' for larceny is determined from the bank's perspective, not the employee's. This precedent strengthens the government's ability to prosecute all participants in a staged bank robbery under the federal bank larceny statute, which often carries more severe penalties than aiding and abetting embezzlement.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Bowser