Weems v. State
203 Md. App. 47
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2012Background
- Anchor Cashing cashed a counterfeit SunTrust check for Weems after confirming with SunTrust; Coulter later learned the check was counterfeit and informed Weems; Weems never paid back any money; trial judge credited theft but questioned knowledge of the false nature of the check; statute §7-104(d) allows post-acquisition intent to deprive if the element of knowingly obtaining control and failing to restore are met; the issue is whether the State proved Weems knew the check was delivered under a mistake at the time of obtaining the money; the court ultimately reversed and vacated the theft conviction and remanded for dismissal
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proves theft under §7-104(d) given timing of knowledge | Weems lacked knowledge at acquisition | State contends knowledge may attach at or after obtaining property | Yes, reversal: statute requires knowledge at acquisition or ambiguity resolves for Weems |
| Whether State proved failure to take reasonable measures to restore the property | State bore burden to prove failure to restore | Circumstantial inferences permitted | No, insufficient evidence to prove failure to restore beyond reasonable doubt |
| Whether lenity affects interpretation due to ambiguity in §7-104(d) | Ambiguity warrants lenity in favor of Weems | Statutory language should control | Lenity applied; remand to vacate theft conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 374 Md. 527 (2003) (set standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)
- Gardner v. State, 420 Md. 1 (2011) (statutory interpretation governs criminal statutes; language plain or ambiguous)
- Moore v. State, 198 Md.App. 655 (2011) (role of lenity in interpreting ambiguous statutes)
- Cunningham v. State, 318 Md. 182 (1989) (lenity when legislative intent uncertain)
- Loker v. State, 250 Md. 677 (1968) (historical role of common-law mens rea elements in theft)