Summary
The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed Richard William Dawes's conviction for larceny by bailee based on his conversion of funds from a Wyoming bank account. The court held that Wyoming had subject matter jurisdiction because the charged conduct and its effects occurred in Wyoming, and that the evidence supported the conviction despite Dawes's joint ownership of the account. The court also upheld the district court's response to the jury's question concerning ownership of the funds.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over a crime allegedly committed outside Wyoming
- Whether there was a variance between the charging documents and trial proof and whether the evidence was sufficient
- Whether a joint owner of a bank account can be convicted of larceny by bailee
- Whether the district court committed plain error in its response to a jury question
Holdings
- Wyoming had subject matter jurisdiction because the conversion occurred in Wyoming (the account was in Wyoming and checks were drawn on it).
- No variance because information and jury instructions were identical; sufficient evidence to prove conversion occurred in Wyoming.
- Whether a joint owner can be a bailee is a question of fact, not a bar as a matter of law.
- No plain error in responding to jury question; the court properly told the jury that ownership was a factual issue.
Key quotations
“we examine and accept as true the State's evidence and all reasonable inferences which can be drawn from it. We do not consider conflicting evidence presented by the defendant. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the jury; rather, we determine whether a jury could have reasonably concluded each of the elements of the crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (¶ 17)
“In general, the rights of the parties to joint bank accounts are to be determined by the rules of contract law, and in determining such rights the intention of the parties is controlling. [E]ach tenant acquires a joint interest in the bank account at the time of the creation of the joint tenancy. Ordinarily, either party to a joint account has the right during the lifetime of both parties to make such use of the joint account as is consistent with joint ownership. While each joint tenant is presumed to own an equal share in the joint bank account, this presumption is rebuttable. [W]here a joint account is opened in both names merely for convenience in making withdrawals and without the intent of creating any property interests, the rights of each joint tenant are not the same. Generally, each joint tenant of a joint tenancy bank account has the power to withdraw the whole, or any part of, the funds in the joint account. . . . [O]rdinarily a party to a joint bank account may appropriate to himself or herself all or part of the funds without liability to his or her co-depositor only where in fact and in law he or she is the real owner of the money . . . . [T]herefore, the right to withdraw funds from a joint account without accountability depends on the agreement or understanding of the parties.” (¶ 27)
“Juries' legal questions, which are what usually prompt supplemental instructions, differ fundamentally from their factual questions for an obvious reason: juries do not serve as the 'triers of law.' They are not expected to divine the law for themselves the way they are expected to find the facts. Rather, the trial judge, aided by counsel, provides the jury with the proper legal standard.” (¶ 32)
Factual background
Mr. Dawes, a California resident, was employed by Mary Storer to pay her household bills. To facilitate payments while she was in Wyoming, Storer opened a joint checking account at a Wyoming bank with Dawes, with right of survivorship. She transferred funds monthly. Dawes wrote unauthorized checks for personal expenses totaling over $195,000. He was charged with larceny by bailee.
Procedural history
Mr. Dawes was charged with larceny by bailee in Carbon County, Wyoming. He filed motions to dismiss challenging jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the charge based on joint ownership. The district court denied the motions. A jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to two to six years in prison. He appealed.