Brief Fact Summary. The Appellant, an attorney, was convicted of two counts of grand larceny as indicted under a District Columbia Code. A man name Gal consulted Appellant in his professional capacity to represent him on a disorderly conduct charge. Gal paid Appellant money to represent him and Appellant contends that the evidence supports the proposition that Gal voluntarily gave him title to the money. In addition, Appellant claims the trial court’s charge to the jury was erroneous.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An individual who obtains money from another by representing he will perform a particular service for that person, with the intention of converting the money to his own use, is guilty of larceny.
Issue. Did the Appellant fraudulently misrepresent the situation to the complaining witness with the intention of converting the money to his own use?
Held. Yes. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
Upon interpretation of the applicable statute, the Court has held that “one who obtains money from another upon the representation that he will perform a certain service for the latter, intending at the time to convert the money, and actually converting the money to his own use is guilty of larceny.
The Appellant fraudulently induced Gal to give him $2,000 to be used for the purpose of bribing the police. He did not intend to use the money for that purpose, and instead converted it to his own use. The court relies on People v. Edwards, which contains essentially the same fact scenario as the present case. The court in Edwards sustained the defendant’s conviction for larceny.
It has long been established that one who obtains money from another upon the representation that he will perform certain service therewith for the latter, intending at the time to convert the money, and actually converting it, to his own use, is guilty of larceny.View Full Point of Law