Crump v. State
Docket Number: | 2006-KA-00454-COA | |
Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-07-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Embezzlement under contract - Sufficiency of evidence - Larceny Judge(s) Concurring: LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY |
|
Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-20-2004 Appealed from: LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: CONVICTED OF SIX COUNTS OF EMBEZZLEMENT BY CONTRACT AND SENTENCED AS AN HABITUAL OFFENDER TO SIX TEN-YEAR SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND TO PAY FINES AND RESTITUTION AS ORDERED. District Attorney: Dee Bates Case Number: 03-238-MS |
Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
Appellant: | JOHNNY CRUMP |
DAVID FITZGERALD LINZEY |
||
Appellee: | STATE OF MISSISSIPPI | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE |
|
Synopsis provided by: If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
Topic: | Embezzlement under contract - Sufficiency of evidence - Larceny |
Summary of the Facts: | Johnny Crump was convicted of six counts of embezzlement under contract. He appeals. |
Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Sufficiency of evidence Crump argues that, in order to prove embezzlement under contract, the State was required to prove that Crump intended to appropriate the rental merchandise at the time he signed the contract with Superior. Embezzlement requires that the intent be formed at some time after the defendant receives the property. This is wholly consistent with the language of the statute and the elements of the crime of embezzlement under contract. The State introduced evidence that Crump failed to notify Superior of at least two changes of address, in violation of the rental contract. The jury also heard from Crump himself that although he was responsible for the payments, he had not personally ensured that Superior had received the money. Additionally, the jury could reasonably have inferred from the testimony of Crump’s former girlfriend that Crump formed the requisite intent after the merchandise was destroyed. This evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, supports a finding that Crump formed the intent to fraudulently appropriate the rental merchandise at some point following the signing of the rental contracts. Issue 2: Larceny Crump argues that he should have been charged with larceny and not with embezzlement under contract. The State exercised its discretion in indicting Crump on charges of embezzlement under contract rather than larceny. The State met its burden of proof on those charges, and the evidence was sufficient to convict Crump of embezzlement under contract. Accordingly, what the State could have done is of no consequence. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court