Commonwealth v. Labadie
467 Mass. 81
Mass.2014Background
- On Aug. 27, 2002, Susan Carcieri (assistant manager) reported a staged robbery at Wyman Gordon Federal Credit Union; police found her loosely bound and the safe open with cash missing.
- Over $210,000 had been in the safe that morning; later police found over $25,000 in newly bundled bills hidden in the defendants’ home.
- Carcieri lived with her husband George Labadie; their finances were strained and Labadie purchased large amounts of money orders and commercial equipment shortly after the incident.
- A Superior Court jury convicted both defendants under Mass. G. L. c. 266, § 52 (bank embezzlement). The Appeals Court reversed § 52 convictions and remanded for retrial on the lesser included offense, G. L. c. 266, § 30 (larceny by embezzlement).
- The SJC granted further review to decide (1) whether a federal credit union is a “bank” under § 52; (2) whether § 30 is a lesser included offense of § 52; (3) whether federal preemption bars state prosecution of § 30 when the victim is a federal credit union; and (4) sufficiency of the evidence for § 30 convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employee of a federal credit union may be convicted under § 52 (bank embezzlement) | § 52 applies to embezzlement from a “bank”; the credit union functions as a banking institution authorized by federal law | Wyman Gordon is a federally chartered credit union and not a “bank” as defined in G. L. c. 167, § 1, so § 52 does not apply | Vacated § 52 convictions: federal credit unions are not “banks” under the statutory definition, so § 52 element not proven |
| Whether larceny by embezzlement (§ 30) is a lesser included offense of § 52 | § 30 elements are encompassed within the § 52 instruction given to the jury | — | Held: § 30 is a lesser included offense of § 52 (elements are a subset) |
| Whether federal law preempts state prosecution for § 30 when victim is a federal credit union | State prosecution would conflict with federal scheme or be preempted because federal statute criminalizes embezzlement by federal credit union employees | State has authority to prosecute general crimes; federal prosecution does not foreclose parallel state prosecution | Held: No preemption — state prosecution under general larceny-by-embezzlement statute is not preempted |
| Sufficiency of evidence for convictions of § 30 as to Carcieri and Labadie | Evidence (access to safe, staged robbery, hidden cash, post-robbery purchases) supports larceny-by-embezzlement convictions for both | Carcieri: insufficient evidence she had control of the safe; Labadie: insufficient evidence he participated in embezzlement (no proof of planning or lookout) | Held: Evidence sufficient to support § 30 convictions for both—Carcieri’s role (access/position of trust) supported; circumstantial evidence supports Labadie’s participation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433 (definition/test for lesser included offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Porro, 458 Mass. 526 (lesser-included offense principles)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (reasonable-doubt sufficiency review standard)
- United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (dual sovereignty — state and federal prosecutions may both lie)
- Watters v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 550 U.S. 1 (state regulation of national banks limited where it interferes with federal purposes)
- Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n, L.L.C., 557 U.S. 519 (states enforce general laws against national banks without impermissible interference)