Problem
The defendant, Steven Charles Leonard, appeals from his jury conviction of theft of services.... He argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict...
On February 10, 1981, the defendant checked into the Tri-Arc Travel Lodge in Salt Lake City.... He paid for the first night's lodging in cash. On February 11, 1981, he again paid his full hotel bill in cash. After the payment on the 11th, no more payments were made. By February 14th, the accumu-lated bill for the defendant's room was over $100. When the defendant did not respond to the hotel's requests for him to contact the desk to pay the accumulated bill, his hotel room was locked. On Feb-ruary 15th, the defendant and another male, James Borland, reported to the front desk supervisor that they were locked out of their room. Defendant promised to pay the outstanding $352.40 owed on the hotel and restaurant bills that were in his name the following day when he could go to his credit union for the necessary money. The defendant was let back into his room.
The following day the resident hotel manager called the defendant's room. The person who answered the phone responded to the defendant's name and promised to pay the bill. Instead the defendant and Borland vacated the room. The defendant was arrested shortly thereafter and charged with theft of services.
The defendant was convicted of obtaining services by deception.... [The relevant statute] provides: "A person commits theft if he obtains services which he knows are available only for compensation by deception, threat, force, or by any means designed to avoid the due payment therefore."
Fraudulent intent is the gravamen of the offense of theft of services. Without [the requirement of] proof of a criminal state of mind, the law would imprison people for mere failure to pay a debt, a practice not sanctioned in this or any other state of this nation.... The rule is that a person who in good faith accepts the benefit of services for which he plans to pay later cannot be convicted of theft even though he subsequently does not recompense the provider of services. The remedy in such case is a civil suit for breach of contract. Obviously, however, a defendant's denial of a fraudulent intent at the time of receiving the services is not binding. As is often the case, circumstantial evidence may speak louder than words.
The defendant made an implied promise to pay for the lodging and services provided the nights of February 12th, 13th, and 14th. However, the implied promise to pay and the subsequent failure to pay the bill, standing alone, are legally insufficient to show the elements of deception...the prosecution must prove fraudulent intent by more than just a mere failure to pay. Some additional evidence is required to sustain a finding of fraudulent intent. In short, a conviction cannot be sustained merely on proof that a person acquired lodging and failed to pay for it.
Numerous types of circumstantial evidence may show fraudulent intent. For example, circumstantial evidence that a defendant had no money and no prospect of acquiring sufficient money when it was time to pay might be sufficient, as would express false promises, or deception as to the identity of the renter. However, evidence that establishes no more than a breach of an express or implied contract is not sufficient to prove the crime of theft of services, and a jury should be so instructed.
[Defendant's conviction was thus reversed.]
Discuss the following and do well-written report that contains the following elements:
A. Executive summary. This is a concisely written statement, less than one page, placed at the front of the report. It briefly summarizes the major points of the case and the decision. It should describe the major issue, the decision, and the logic supporting the decision.
B. Problem statement. Present the central issue(s) or a major problem(s) in the case here. Do not rehash the facts of the case; assume that anyone reading the report is familiar with the case. You should analyze the current situation and provide recommendations
C. Conclusion. Present your analysis and the logic (why you agree or disagree) of the decision.