Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit • 1981

United States v. Thomas Edwin Faulkner

638 F.2d 129 | 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 19802

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that a carrier can violate § 659 by taking control of interstate cargo and trying to convert it, even if the goods never leave the truck and no sale is completed.

Background

Thomas Edwin Faulkner, a North American Van Lines driver, picked up 105 refrigerators in San Diego for delivery in Hartford, Connecticut. During the interstate trip, he stopped in Las Vegas and contacted Richard Urbauer, the owner of an appliance store, to offer the refrigerators for sale. Urbauer alerted police.

Faulkner later brought his truck to Urbauer's store, broke the truck's seals, entered its rear compartment, opened two refrigerator cartons for Urbauer to inspect, and rearranged boxes in the truck. The two men then attempted to negotiate a sale, but they did not reach an agreement. Faulkner was arrested as he left the store.

A jury convicted Faulkner under 18 U.S.C. § 659 for embezzling or stealing from an interstate shipment. He appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient because he neither removed the refrigerators from the truck nor completed a sale.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Faulkner embezzled, stole, or unlawfully took goods from an interstate shipment under 18 U.S.C. § 659, even though he did not remove the refrigerators from the truck or sell them.

Holding

Yes. The evidence permitted a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Faulkner took possession and control of the refrigerators with intent to convert them to his own use.

Reasoning

On sufficiency review, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and asks whether a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Section 659 broadly protects interstate commerce and is not confined to the technical requirements of common-law larceny.

For purposes of § 659, an unlawful taking occurs when a person assumes possession and control of interstate goods with the intent to convert them. The statute does not require physical removal of the goods from the vehicle or asportation in the common-law sense.

The evidence supported a finding that Faulkner exercised dominion and control over the refrigerators. He deviated from his assigned route, sought out a buyer, brought the truck to the buyer's store, broke the truck's seals, opened cartons to display the refrigerators, and rearranged the cargo while pursuing the proposed sale.

Those same acts allowed the jury to infer the required intent to convert. Faulkner's attempt to negotiate a personal sale of the shipment showed an intent to appropriate the owner's property for his own benefit. Completion of the sale was unnecessary, just as physical removal from the truck was unnecessary.