Crump v. State


<- Return to Search Results


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