State v. Weems
429 Md. 329
| Md. | 2012Background
- respondent Weems was convicted of theft after cashing a counterfeit check and not returning the money
- Anchor Check Cashing verified funds before giving Respondent the money; the check was drawn on an attorney escrow account at SunTrust Bank
- Coulter, owner of Anchor, learned the check was counterfeit after examining it and speaking with Respondent; she informed Respondent and attempted to recover the funds
- Anchor eventually deposited the check; it was later returned stamped counterfeit; Respondent was notified but did not return the money
- trial court convicted Respondent of theft under Md. Code (2002, 2012 Repl.Vol.), § 7-104(d) for obtaining property knowing it was delivered under a mistake and retaining it
- Court of Special Appeals reversed the conviction; the State sought certiorari; the Court granted and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed the reversal and held for Respondent
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 7-104(d) requires knowledge at the time of obtaining the property | State: knowledge may be formed after obtainingROPERTY and still support liability | Weems: knowledge must exist at the moment of obtaining the property | Knowledge must be known at the time of obtaining |
| Whether the statute criminalizes later-formed knowledge or requires contemporaneous knowledge across all subsections | State: statute applies even if knowledge is acquired after obtaining property | Weems: statute requires knowledge at obtainment; later knowledge cannot satisfy § 7-104(d) in this context | Statute requires knowledge at the time of obtaining; later knowledge alone does not satisfy |
| Whether the ambiguity in § 7-104(d) should be resolved by the rule of lenity | State: interpret to punish broader conduct | Weems: resolve ambiguity in favor of the accused | Lenity applied; court errs on side of the accused; conviction not sustained under the statute as written |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. State, 420 Md. 1 (2011) (principles of statutory interpretation; context within statute)
- Johnson v. State, 415 Md. 413 (2010) (interpretation within statutory scheme; legislative intent)
- Kelley v. State, 402 Md. 745 (2008) (history of 7-104; theft reform purpose)
- Moore v. State, 388 Md. 623 (2005) (strict construction in criminal statutes; rule of lenity considerations)
- State v. Purcell, 342 Md. 214 (1996) (statutory interpretation in criminal theft context)