State v. Smithey
| Decision Date | 02 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 7214SC324,7214SC324 |
| Citation | 15 N.C.App. 427,190 S.E.2d 369 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Daniel Thomas SMITHEY. |
Atty. Gen., Robert Morgan, by Associate Atty. Gen., Benjamin H. Baxter, Jr., for the State.
Kenneth B. Spaulding, Durham, for defendant appellant.
Defendant assigns error to denial of his motions for nonsuit. There was ample direct evidence that defendant, as agent of his employer and by the terms and in the course of his employment, received money belonging to his employer and that he failed to account for it. Defendant's contention is that the evidence was insufficient to show any fraudulent intent or that he willfully misapplied the property of his employer for any purpose. We do not agree.
'Fraudulent intent which constitutes a necessary element of the crime of embezzlement, within the meaning of the statute, G.S. § 14--90, is the intent of the agent to embezzle or otherwise willfully and corruptly use or misapply the property of the principal or employer for purposes other than those for which the property is held.' State v. Gentry, 228 N.C. 643, 46 S.E.2d 863. 'Such intent may be shown by direct evidence, or by evidence of facts and circumstances from which it may reasonably be inferred.' State v. McLean, 209 N.C. 38, 182 S.E. 700. It is not necessary to show that the agent converted his principal's property to the agent's own use. State v. Foust, 114 N.C. 842, 19 S.E. 275. It is sufficient to show that the agent fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misapplied it, or that he secreted it with intent to embezzle or fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misapply it. G.S. § 14--90.
When the evidence in the present case is viewed in the light most favorable to the State and the State is given the benefit of every reasonable inference which may be fairly drawn therefrom, as we are required to do when passing on motion for nonsuit, State v. Block, 245 N.C. 661, 97 S.E.2d 243, there was evidence from which a reasonable inference may be drawn that defendant either fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misapplied, his employer's funds, or that he secreted his employer's funds with the intent to embezzle or fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misapply them. He admitted to his supervisor that he had received the funds and that he understood he was supposed to deposit them each night in the bank for the account of his employer. He admitted he had failed so to deposit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bryant, 8018SC631
...the defendant converted the property in question to his own use. State v. Foust, 114 N.C. 842, 19 S.E. 275 (1894); State v. Smithey, 15 N.C.App. 427, 190 S.E.2d 369 (1972). In Smithey, Judge Parker stated, "It is sufficient to show that the agent fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misa......
-
State v. Booker
...care) fraudulently to one's own use." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 406 (9th ed. 1991); see also State v. Smithey , 15 N.C. App. 427, 429, 190 S.E.2d 369, 370 (1972) ("Fraudulent intent which constitutes a necessary element of the crime of embezzlement ... is the intent of the a......
-
State v. Parker
...willfully misapplied it, or that the agent intended to fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misapply it. State v. Smithey, 15 N.C.App. 427, 429–30, 190 S.E.2d 369, 370–71 (1972) (citations omitted). Here, the State presented evidence that defendant was an employee of the school system wh......
-
State v. Speckman
...he secreted such funds with the intent to embezzle or fraudulently or knowingly and willfully misapply them. See State v. Smithey, 15 N.C.App. 427, 190 S.E.2d 369 (1972). In short, the evidence is sufficient to support a verdict of guilty of The evidence also supports a verdict of guilty of......