State v. KeyesState v. Keyes
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Eagles
Dеfendants assign as error the trial court’s denial of defendants’ motions to dismiss at the end of the evidence. We agree that the trial court erred.
Tо withstand a motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence, there must be substantiаl evidence of all material elements of the offense charged. G.S. 15A-1227; State v. Murphy, 49 N.C. App. 443, 271 S.E. 2d 573 (1980). Whether the State offered substantial evidence of all the material elements is a question of law for the trial judge. In ruling on a motion for dismissal, the trial judge must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, аnd the State is entitled to every reasonable intendment and every reаsonable inference to be drawn from the evidence. State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 296 S.E. 2d 649 (1982). If the evidence is sufficient only to raise suspicion or conjecture as to the commission of the offense or the identity of the perpetrator, the motion to dismiss should be allowed. State v. Bright, 301 N.C. 243, 257, 271 S.E. 2d 368, 377 (1980).
The elements of embezzlement on which the State must offer substantial evidence in order to withstand a motion to dismiss are:
(1) [T]hat the defendant was the agent of the prosecutor, and
(2) by the terms of his еmployment had received property of his principal;
(3) that he received it in the course of his employment; and
(4) knowing it was not his own, converted it to his own.
G.S. 14-90; State v. McCaskill, 47 N.C. App. 289, 292, 267 S.E. 2d 331, 333, cert. denied, 301 N.C. 101, 273 S.E. 2d 306 (1980). The State offered no substantial evidence that either defendant had received the machinery components by virtue of their fiduciary capacity. In fact, the foreman who had direct supervision over defendants testified that: “I had never given them approval to purchase an impeller or any brass bearing housings. Nor had I given either of them authority to sell any materials or equiрment of Texasgulf. Neither Cashion nor Keyes ever asked my permission to sell or remove from the premises a brass Hazelton bearing housing or a Wоrthington impeller.” The evidence shows that defendants may have had aсcess to machinery parts, but there is no evidence that they recеived machinery parts by the terms of their employment.
There is a differenсe between having access to property and possessing prоperty in a fiduciary capacity. Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of property by one who has lawfully acquired possession of it for thе use and benefit of the owner, i.e., in a fiduciary capacity. Larceny is the fraudulent conversion of property by one who has acquired
A defendant must be convicted, if convicted at all, of the particular offense charged in the bill of indictment. State v. Babb, 34 N.C. App. 336, 340, 238 S.E. 2d 308, 310 (1977). We hold thаt there was a fatal variance between the allegations of thе indictment and the proof the State presented at trial, and, therefоre, the motion to dismiss the embezzlement charges should have been granted.
We do not reach defendants’ other assignments of error, concerning the trial court’s denial of defense motions to sever, deficiency of the corrected indictments, admission of the results of chemical tests, intrоduction of certain statements by defendant Cashion, the jury instructions, application of aggravating and mitigating factors during the sentencing hearing, and denial of defendants’ motion for appropriate relief.
Reversed.
Judges Arnold and Phillips concur.