Criminal Law

Brief

State v. Riggins

Procedural History:

• Jury found defendant guilty of embezzlement.
• Appealed.
• Affirmed.

Facts:

• Defendant was the owner and operated of a collection agency.
• In 1953, defendant called Tarrant and said he was in the collection business and asked to collect the firm’s delinquent accounts.
• The two reached an oral agreement whereby the defendant was to take over the accounts.
  • Under the agreement, a certain percentage was to go to the victim.
• The parties operated under the agreement for about two years.
• In 1954 it became aware to the victim that the defendant had collected on several accounts for her in full but had no accounted to her.

Issue:

• Is the defendant guilty of embezzlement?

Holding:

• Yes. Affirmed.

Reasoning:

• The court concluded that the defendant was an agent of the complaining witness, receiving money in a fiduciary capacity and therefore was within the classified persons said in the embezzlement statute.
  • Agent is defined to mean anyone who undertakes to transact some business or to manage some affair for another by the latter’s authority and to render an account of such business or affair.