AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was employed as a "yard boy" for B&D Industries, Inc., performing general labor at a construction site. He collected copper scraps and wire, sold them, and shared the proceeds with his supervisor, Mr. Stevens, under Stevens' direction. B&D Industries had a policy that unused supplies or scrap items were to be returned or sold for the company's benefit, except for one instance where the sale of copper scrap was authorized by the company president for specific purposes. The Defendant was charged with larceny over $20,000 for selling copper belonging to B&D Industries without authorization.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the evidence only supported a conviction for embezzlement, not larceny, because the Defendant was allegedly acting under the direction of his supervisor, Mr. Stevens, who had implied authority over the disposal of copper scraps.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the Defendant was rightfully convicted of larceny, as there was no evidence of entrustment or authorization for the Defendant to sell the copper scraps for personal gain.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for larceny over $20,000 rather than embezzlement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for one count of larceny over $20,000.

Reasons

• Per SUTIN, J. (BUSTAMANTE, J., and KENNEDY, J., concurring): The Court found that the Defendant's actions did not constitute embezzlement because there was no evidence of entrustment or authorization from B&D Industries for the Defendant to sell the copper scraps. The distinction between larceny and embezzlement hinges on the element of entrustment, which was not present in this case. The Defendant's role and actions did not involve any discretion or authority over the copper scraps that would suggest embezzlement. Instead, the unauthorized sale of copper scraps for personal gain, without evidence of entrustment or permission, supported a conviction for larceny. The Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments comparing his case to others involving embezzlement, as those cases involved clear entrustment and authorization by the employers, which was lacking in this instance.