State v. Weems
| Decision Date | 26 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 23281-KA,23281-KA |
| Citation | 595 So.2d 358 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Carl W. WEEMS, Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Bobby L. Culpepper, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Richard Ieyoub, Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, Walter E. May, Jr., Dist. Atty., Douglas L. Stokes, Asst. Dist. Atty., Jonesboro, for appellee.
Before SEXTON, VICTORY and STEWART, JJ.
Defendant, Carl W. Weems, was charged by bill of information with one count of misapplication of payments in violation of LSA-R.S. 14:202. Following a conviction by a six member jury, the defendant appealed, asserting numerous assignments of error. Finding assignment of error number 20 has merit, it is unnecessary to discuss the remaining issues. We reverse and enter a judgment of acquittal.
Pete Potts and his wife, Hixie Potts, owned a chicken farm in Jackson Parish. In the spring of 1990, Mr. Potts entered into an agreement with Carl W. "Corky" Weems, d/b/a Arkla Builders, whereby Weems agreed to build a chicken house on the Potts' property for $40,000. The Potts paid Weems the $40,000 in three installments, as required by the contract. The first check was issued on June 5, 1990 in the amount of $18,000; the second check was issued on June 8, 1990 for $18,000; and the final check was issued on June 14, 1990 for $4,000 and was marked "paid in full."
On July 6, 1990, Taylor Brothers, Inc. filed an affidavit creating a materialman's lien against the Potts' property, based on $13,291.79 owed for materials used on the Potts' project. Thereafter, Taylor Brothers filed suit against the Potts to enforce the lien.
Weems was subsequently charged with a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:202 which reads in relevant part:
A. No person, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of a contractor or subcontractor, who has received money on account of a contract for the construction, erection, or repair of a building, structure or other improvement, including contracts and mortgages for interim financing, shall knowingly fail to apply the money received as necessary to settle claims for material and labor due for the construction or under the contract.
After trial on February 19 and 20, 1991, Weems was convicted of misapplication of payments in the amount of $13,000, and was later sentenced to serve two years at hard labor and ordered to pay a fine of $500 and all costs, including all jury expenses, or in default of payment, to serve six months in the parish jail. The sentence was suspended, Weems was placed on supervised probation and ordered to make restitution to the Potts.
In assignments of error, the defendant claims the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal due to the state's failure to prove all the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. LSA-C.Cr.P.Art. 821; State v. Allen, 440 So.2d 1330 (La.1983).
Under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), the proper standard of appellate review for a sufficiency of evidence claim is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. English, 582 So.2d 1358 (La.App. 2d Cir.1991), writ denied 584 So.2d 1172. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 821 parallels the Jackson language in providing a Louisiana standard pertaining to post-verdict motions for judgment of acquittal based upon sufficiency of the evidence.
The elements that must be proven to establish a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:202 are: (1) the existence of a contract to construct, erect, or repair a building, structure, or other improvement; (2) the receipt of money on the contract; and (3) a knowing failure to apply the money received as necessary to settle claims for material and labor due under the contract.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the state, the evidence at trial clearly established that Weems contracted to build a chicken house on the Potts'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brooks
...under the contract for legitimate expenses and claims for materials and labor in the course of the project”); State v. Weems, 595 So.2d 358, 360 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1992) (in reversing conviction held that “the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt defendant knowingly misapplied part o......
-
People v. Whipple, Docket No. 155561
...562 S.W.2d 90, 92-93 (Ky.App.1978); Overstreet v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 104, 108-109, 67 S.E.2d 875 (1951). Contra State v. Weems, 595 So.2d 358, 360-361 (La.App.1992); Lingold v. State, 162 Ga.App. 486, 487, 292 S.E.2d 193 (1982). In Overstreet, supra, the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virgi......
-
State v. Marshall
... ... 1st Cir.1987). "As long as the contractor applies all the money he receives from the owner to the labor and material bills he incurs on the owner's job, he is not criminally responsible under the statute, even if the amount received is insufficient to discharge all the bills." State v. Weems, 595 So.2d 358, 360 (La. App. 2d Cir.1992) ... The defendant started construction on the Moores' house on May 14, 1993. From May 27, 1993, until October 25, 1993, six checks were written to the defendant from the victims' construction account for a total of $117,725.00. Mr. Moore ... ...
-
State v. Spears
...to settle claims for material and labor due under the contract. State v. Cohn, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/3/01), 783 So.2d 1269; State v. Weems, 595 So.2d 358 (La.App. 2d Cir.1992). In the present case, an additional element of proof necessary is that the amount of money misapplied totaled more than $......