Free Newsletter
Theft by Swindle – Intent
cassiejohnson//September 12, 2014//
Appellant challenged his convictions of theft by swindle, arguing that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the element of intent to defraud his employees. Appellant claimed that his actions were driven by his desperation to save his business. Because the only rational inference consistent with the circumstances proved at trial was that appellant intentionally took money from current and former employees to pay for ongoing business expenses, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions. Affirmed.
A13-1731 State v. Elvig (Anoka County)
Top News
- Who is liable when AI goes rogue? Lawyers see new risks
- Trump says he’ll bring ballroom fight to Supreme Court after lower court halts work
- Trump tries new tack against birthright citizenship after Supreme Court snub
- Justices void contractor’s lien, deny legal fees in construction suit
- Judicial Branch announces death of OLPR’S Humiston
Expert Testimony
- Perspectives: Taylor-Travis marriage recalls prenup laws here
- Quandaries & Quagmires: Fast-Tracking Temporary Lawyer Suspensions
- Perspectives: ‘Slam’ suits: Recalling wrestling cases as WWE arrives
- Best At Work Insights: We tore out the workforce backup generator
Legal Tech
- Criminal defense lawyers have duty to use AI, paper argues
- AI is reshaping family law practice, but attorneys worry about DIY research
- Massachusetts court rejects work product protection for AI documents by girlfriend
.png)
