State v. Larson, 605 N.W.2d 706 (2000)

Citation: State v. Larson, 605 N.W.2d 706 (2000)
Parent Document: State v. Larson, 605 N.W.2d 706 (2000)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 2000-02-03
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1965076/state-v-larson/ ↗

Full Text

1,409 chars

Here, the state had alternative theories as to when the theft took place. One theory is that it happened when the funds were commingled and spent. Our review of the record convinces us that the state, recognizing that it was unable to prove a trust or trust-like relationship, did not place primary emphasis on the theory that it was criminal to commingle the security deposit funds with other business funds. In any event it seems clear, based upon the state’s presentation to the jury, that had the deposits in fact been returned, appellant would not have been prosecuted for theft by temporary taking based on the commingling. The second, and more compelling, theory is that the theft took place when the deposit was due to the customer but unpaid. In that regard, we note that the evidence was not presented in a way that showed that any particular deposit went unreturned at a time there were funds to pay it. The state attempted to prove, in essence, that the pattern and persistence of appellant’s conduct gave rise to the crime, rather than particular instances being criminal in and of themselves. Indeed the state presented ample evidence to show that over a three-year period the appellant, through his company, took deposits and kept on taking them after he knew; others were going unpaid, and had money enough in the company for other expenses but failed to meet his obligations to his customers.

Other Sections in This Document (127)

Full Text