State v. Coleman
33 A.3d 468
| Md. | 2011Background
- Coleman failed to perform eight construction contracts for detached homes.
- He was convicted of eight counts of theft by deception and eight counts of failure to escrow under the Act.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed all convictions, holding the Act did not apply and there was insufficient intent evidence.
- The Court granted certiorari to address four questions about theft, transfers, post-crime intent, and the Act.
- The Court affirmed the Court of Special Appeals, finding insufficient evidence of intentional deprivation to support theft convictions.
- The Court held the superseded Act did not apply to land conveyed without a home; Senate Bill 334 amended the Act for unfinished or not-begun units.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did breach give rise to theft by deception? | Coleman failed to perform, yet obtained money. | No deprivation element; breach alone not theft. | Insufficient evidence of intentional deprivation; affirm. |
| Is a third-party transfer a transfer of interest or possession for theft? | Transfer to buyers via deeds satisfies obtainment. | No deprivation; buyers retain property interests. | Transfer to third party can be obtainment; but deprivation not shown. |
| Can post-contract acts infer intent to steal? | Subsequent conduct supports mens rea of theft. | Post-contract acts do not prove deprivation intent. | Intent to deprive cannot be inferred from post-crime acts here. |
| Does the Deposits on New Homes Act apply when land lacks a residential unit at sale? | Act may apply to deposits in such transactions. | Act does not apply where there is no unit at conveyance. | Superseded Act language does not apply to land conveyed without a home. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fraidin v. State, 85 Md.App. 231 (Md. App. 1991) (sufficiency focus on deception and obtainment of control)
- Lane v. State, 60 Md.App. 412 (Md. App. 1984) (misrepresentation in mortgage context; complete theft not required of nonperformance)
- Sibert v. State, 301 Md. 141 (Md. 1984) (claim of right and affirmative defense to theft)
- Jones v. State, 303 Md. 323 (Md. 1985) (required intent to deprive in theft statute)
- Sorrell v. State, 315 Md. 224 (Md. 1989) (flight and subsequent acts considered with other factors)
- Wash. Nat’l Arena Ltd. P’ship v. Treasurer, 287 Md. 38 (Md. 1980) (legislative intent and retroactivity considerations)
- Evans v. State, 420 Md. 391 (Md. 2011) (statutory construction read statute as a whole)