United States v. Mafnas

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
701 F.2d 83 (1983)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employee or bailee entrusted with a sealed container for a limited purpose, such as delivery, has mere custody of the contents, not legal possession. Therefore, opening the container and appropriating its contents constitutes a trespassory taking, satisfying the requirement for common law larceny under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b).

Facts:

Mafnas was an employee of the Guam Armored Car Service (Service).
The Bank of Hawaii and the Bank of America hired the Service to deliver sealed bags of money.
As part of his employment, Mafnas was entrusted with these money bags for the purpose of delivery.
On three separate occasions, Mafnas opened the sealed bags he was supposed to deliver.
Mafnas removed and kept money from inside the bags.
The money belonged to the two federally insured banks.

Procedural Posture:

Mafnas was charged in the U.S. District Court of Guam, the trial court, with stealing money from federally insured banks in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b).
Following a trial, Mafnas was convicted on three counts.
Mafnas, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing his conduct was embezzlement, not larceny.

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 armored car employee, who is given sealed money bags for delivery and subsequently opens them to take the money, commit a 'trespassory taking' required for common law larceny under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b)?

Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes. An armored car employee who opens sealed money bags and takes the contents commits a trespassory taking required for common law larceny. The court provided two independent rationales for its conclusion. First, under the doctrine of custody versus possession, an individual who receives property for a limited or temporary purpose, such as delivery, acquires only custody, not legal possession. The owner retains constructive possession, and the employee's subsequent decision to take the property is a trespass against that possession, constituting larceny. Second, under the 'breaking bulk' doctrine, even if the Service, as a bailee, had lawful possession of the sealed bags, it did not have possession of their contents. When Mafnas opened the bags, he committed a trespass against the banks' constructive possession of the money inside, which is larceny. Therefore, whether Mafnas had mere custody or was an agent of a bailee, his actions constituted a trespassory taking.

Analysis:

This case illustrates the application of ancient common law distinctions to modern federal criminal statutes. By importing the doctrines of 'custody versus possession' and 'breaking bulk' into the interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b), the court solidifies the line between larceny and embezzlement. The decision establishes that a trespassory taking can occur even when an individual initially acquires property lawfully. This precedent affects cases involving employees, messengers, and other bailees, ensuring that converting property by exceeding the scope of authorized trust can be prosecuted as larceny rather than embezzlement, which may have different elements or penalties.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Mafnas (1983)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"