United States v. Thomas Edwin Faulkner
638 F.2d 129, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 19802 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under 18 U.S.C. § 659, a person unlawfully takes goods from an interstate shipment by exercising dominion and control over them with the intent to convert them to their own use. This does not require physical removal of the goods from the transport vehicle or a completed sale.
Facts:
- Faulkner was a truck driver for North American Van Lines, tasked with transporting 105 refrigerators from San Diego, California, to Hartford, Connecticut.
- While en route, Faulkner stopped in Las Vegas, Nevada, which was off his assigned route.
- Faulkner contacted Richard Urbauer, the owner of a local appliance store, and offered to sell him the entire shipment of refrigerators.
- Urbauer reported the offer to the police.
- Faulkner drove his truck to Urbauer's store, broke the cargo seals, entered the trailer, and opened two cartons to display the refrigerators to Urbauer.
- Faulkner and Urbauer negotiated a potential sale inside the store but failed to reach an agreement.
- As Faulkner began to leave the store, he was arrested by police.
Procedural Posture:
- Faulkner was tried before a jury in a federal trial court.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict, convicting Faulkner of theft from an interstate shipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659.
- Faulkner (as appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.
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 person unlawfully 'take' goods from an interstate shipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659 by exercising dominion and control over them with intent to sell, even if the goods are never physically removed from the truck and no sale is completed?
Opinions:
Majority - Skopil, Circuit Judge
Yes. A person unlawfully takes goods under 18 U.S.C. § 659 by assuming possession and control with the intent to convert them to their own use. The court reasoned that Congress intended the statute to be construed broadly to protect interstate commerce, and its scope is not limited to the narrow definition of common law larceny, which requires asportation (carrying away). Faulkner exercised dominion and control over the refrigerators when he deviated from his route, offered the goods for sale, broke the truck's seals, and displayed the merchandise to a potential buyer. These actions were sufficient to demonstrate he had assumed possession of the goods and possessed the requisite felonious intent to convert them to his own use, making the lack of physical removal or a completed sale legally irrelevant.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the 'taking' element of theft from an interstate shipment under 18 U.S.C. § 659 is significantly broader than the traditional common law larceny requirement of asportation. The court established that the actus reus (the guilty act) is satisfied by the exercise of unauthorized dominion and control over the property, rather than its physical movement. This lowers the evidentiary burden for prosecutors, allowing them to secure convictions based on actions demonstrating an intent to convert property, even if the theft is thwarted before the goods are physically removed. The ruling strengthens the protection of interstate commerce by criminalizing such conduct at an earlier stage.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Thomas Edwin Faulkner