State v. Young, 1
| Decision Date | 28 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,CA-CR,1 |
| Citation | 173 Ariz. 287,842 P.2d 1300 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Stephen Craig YOUNG, Appellant. 90-1563. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Pursuant to an Alford 1 plea, appellant Stephen Craig Young was convicted of one count of theft, a class 3 felony. The defendant was placed on intensive probation for two years with a condition that he serve 45 days in jail. The charge arose out of losses incurred by the Baker Shoes store in Flagstaff between May 1985 and January 1987, while defendant was employed as manager. On appeal, defendant challenges a portion of the trial court's restitution award to the victim for losses incurred between May 1985 and June 1986. We must determine if the award of restitution bears a reasonable relationship to the victim's loss. State v. Howard, 168 Ariz. 458, 460, 815 P.2d 5, 7 (App.1991).
At a restitution hearing, an internal auditor for the store owner testified that the Flagstaff store was inventoried in May 1985, at the time defendant was named manager. In June of 1986, an audit revealed a shortage of inventory valued at $4,017. A subsequent audit, in January 1987, revealed a further shortage of inventory valued at $1,719. The witness testified that the company generally experienced shortages of one percent to two percent of sales, and estimated that 98 percent of such shortages were attributable to theft by employees.
The regional manager for the store's owner testified at the hearing that defendant admitted he was "kind of dipping into the till." Defendant explained that he had incurred heavy bar bills and taxi fares of $200 a month that forced him to borrow from the cash register. Three to four weeks after defendant became store manager, he stated that he had already taken $150 from the register. According to the regional manager, the embezzlement had continued, "on an off and on basis," until defendant was terminated following the January 1987 audit.
Defendant contends that the store's calculation of its $4,017 loss between May 1985 and June 1986 is too speculative and that other persons may have been responsible for the inventory shrinkage. With regard to the first argument, the auditor testified that the loss calculation was based on an inventory that showed shortages in four product areas. To each missing unit of inventory, the auditor assigned an average price value, since the inventory did not identify what items were actually missing. There is nothing in the record to indicate that this method of accounting was speculative. See State v. Howard, supra (). We find there was a reasonable basis for the store's calculation of its loss.
In support of his second argument, defendant notes that all Edison Brothers stores experienced system-wide losses of one percent to two percent. Edison Brothers is the parent company of Baker Shoes Stores. A regional manager for Edison testified that "normal" losses were one percent of sales. Because all stores incur losses, defendant argues, the court should not have inferred that the total loss of $4,017 at the Flagstaff store was attributable to him. We disagree. There is no way of knowing whether losses to employee theft in all of the stores over a given period of time is attributable to a single employee or several employees. It seems logical to assume that either might be true. Here, there is no evidence that any other employee was stealing from the store, and there was clear evidence that the defendant stole substantial amounts. He took the money in a variety of ways. Sometimes he simply took money from the cash register. On other occasions he sold shoes for cash and did not ring up the transaction. On still others, he sold shoes without ringing up the transaction until that particular model of shoe was placed on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Duarte, 2 CA-CR 2017-0349
... ... VSQUEZ, Presiding Judge: 1 After a jury trial, Alejandro Duarte was convicted of burglary, aggravated assault, and three counts of disorderly conduct. The trial court imposed ... ...
-
State v. May
...as noted, he presented no evidence in the way of accounting records to back up his "very rough" estimate. Compare State v. Young, 173 Ariz. 287, 842 P.2d 1300, 1302 (App.1992) (where defendant employee stole proceeds of merchandise sales from retail store, "lost profits" component of procee......
-
State v. Snouffer
...and was ordered to pay restitution for the store's total losses incurred during the time he was a store manager. 173 Ariz. 287, 288, 842 P.2d 1300, 1301 (App. 1992). Young argued that because "all stores incur losses," the court should not have attributed the store's total loss over the rel......
-
State v. Adams
...restitution order therefore was reasonably related to both Appellant's conviction and the bank's loss. See State v. Young, 173 Ariz. 287, 288, 842 P.2d 1300, 1301 (App.1992). For these reasons, Appellant's convictions and sentences are NOYES, P.J., and RYAN, J., concur. ...