Sufficiency of evidence; Larceny by conversion; People v Christenson; People v Franz

The court concluded that “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the facts of this case did not prove the elements of larceny by conversion. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction of larceny by conversion of property, valued at $20,000 or more,” was vacated. The case arose “from a business defendant operated under the name Momentum Marketing.” Advertising space was sold to businesses in the book (known as the Monkey Book), but defendant never printed a copy of the book to distribute in the year at issue. The court held that this case was “similar to the facts in Christenson rather than the cases involving deposits given to a defendant for acquiring specific goods that were never delivered and no refund was issued, such as Franz.” The court concluded that “the payments the complainants made to Momentum Marketing cannot be construed as deposits of funds to be used for a specific purpose (in this case, publication of the Monkey Book). While the complainants purchased advertising, there is no evidence that the terms of their agreements required that defendant put the money they paid aside to ensure that he could fund the printing of the directories at the end of the year.” Because the case was not like the “cases where deposits were paid to the defendants to procure specific goods, we do not believe that the prosecution proved all of the elements for larceny by conversion. For this reason, the trial court erred when it did not direct a verdict for defendant.”