State v. Hayward
153 A.3d 1
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Victim Ronald Runk met defendant Mark Hayward in 2008 and invested $34,000 separately in Hayward’s venture; later Runk lent Hayward $50,100 between Feb–July 2009 via transfers to Hayward’s accounts and an LLC account.
- Hayward solicited repeated loans claiming imminent access to a Barclays Bank account holding over $1.2 million and produced three letters and a £35,000 Barclays check later determined to be forged or fraudulent.
- Hayward provided limited collateral (a pearl necklace, paintings, a worthless clock) and repeatedly promised repayment but made no payments; he purchased $13,750 of keychains through his LLC after receiving loans.
- Barclays’ fraud unit confirmed the letters and check were false; Runk confronted Hayward late 2009 and reported the matter to police in 2010; Hayward was arrested in 2012.
- Hayward was tried and convicted by a jury of first‑degree larceny (value > statutory threshold) based on theories of false pretenses and false promise; he appealed claiming insufficient evidence of intent to permanently deprive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported intent to permanently deprive (element of larceny) | State: Hayward used deceit (fake letters, forged check), never repaid $50,100, and spent money on business purchases, so intent to permanently deprive can be inferred | Hayward: absence of direct proof he intended permanent deprivation; funds were used for business and he intended to repay from profits | Affirmed: cumulative circumstantial evidence supported inference of intent to permanently deprive |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sam, 98 Conn. App. 13 (overview of sufficiency-of-evidence standard for jury verdict)
- State v. Flowers, 161 Conn. App. 747 (jury may apply common sense and infer intent from conduct)
- State v. Kimber, 48 Conn. App. 234 (withdrawing/keeping funds and ignoring return requests supports inference of no intent to repay)
- State v. Torres, 111 Conn. App. 575 (promises to repay insufficient alone to show good faith)
- State v. Pulley, 46 Conn. App. 414 (post-receipt conduct is probative of initial intent)
- State v. Vars, 154 Conn. 255 (fraudulent intent may be shown where possession is obtained for a purpose and then converted)