State v. Jones, 369 N.C. 631

Defendant Keyshawn (Keyshaun) Jones, an independent truck driver, requested $1,200 from a West Motor Freight maintenance account; payroll processor mistakenly input $120,000, producing a net direct deposit of $118,729.49 into Jones’s SECU account.
West and its payroll processor discovered the error, attempted to stop/reverse the transfer, and notified Jones (through an agent) asking him not to withdraw the excess funds.
Jones nonetheless made multiple withdrawals and transfers over the following days totaling $116,861.80 (including ATM withdrawals, electronic transfers, and cashier’s checks), leaving insufficient funds for reversal.
Jones was indicted on three counts of felonious larceny (distinct amounts: $7,000; $20,000; $89,861.80) and three counts of possession of stolen goods; possession counts were dismissed, and a jury convicted Jones on the larceny counts.
The Court of Appeals vacated the convictions holding no trespassory taking; the State appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court, which granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jones “took” West’s property (element of larceny)	Jones took property when he removed funds because he knowingly interfered with West’s possessory interest	No larceny because Jones possessed the funds in his account (no trespass)	Held: Jones did “take” West’s property — sufficient evidence of trespassory taking
Whether West retained possession (actual or constructive) of the excess funds after deposit	West retained constructive possession because it had intent and capability to reverse the deposit and expressly notified Jones	Jones contended deposit gave him possession and control of funds	Held: West retained constructive possession while reversal was possible; Jones had only custody, not possession
Whether knowing appropriation from mere custody can be larceny	State: converting funds after notice and despite owner’s demand shows felonious intent and constitutes larceny	Defense: passive receipt by direct deposit defeats the trespass element	Held: Knowing appropriation by one with mere custody constitutes larceny; State proved intent
Standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence	State: review should view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution and draw all reasonable inferences supporting conviction	—	Held: Applied sufficiency standard; evidence was substantial to support convictions

State v. White, 322 N.C. 506 (establishing larceny elements)
State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225 (larceny element jurisprudence)
State v. Bowers, 273 N.C. 652 (actual vs. constructive trespass; fraud/trick as constructive trespass)
State v. Weaver, 359 N.C. 246 (discussion of possession concepts and constructive possession test)
State v. Beaver, 317 N.C. 643 (constructive possession defined as intent and capability to control)
State v. Ruffin, 164 N.C. 416 (custody vs. possession; appropriation by custodian can constitute larceny)