Reference no: EM133628854

Facts: The client, a resident of State A, is charged in state court with embezzlement in violation of a 1982 State A embezzlement statute. The company he works for manufactures products for the federal government and private businesses. His employer kept the company checks in a locked filing cabinet. All the employees knew where the key to the locked filing cabinet was located. The employer would often presign several blank checks when he left town. He authorized department heads to access the cabinet, fill in checks, and use them to pay invoices and other business expenses. The department heads, on occasion, would tell employees to open the cabinet and bring the checkbook to them. The client was not a department head and was not authorized to fill in the checks. He took the key to the locked filing cabinet, filled in one of the blank checks with his name, and cashed and spent it to pay his personal bills. The client claims that he did not commit embezzlement because he was not "entrusted" with the check within the meaning of the state statute. Rule of Law: Section 18-6-22 of the state criminal code provides: "Embezzlement consists of the embezzling or converting to one's own use of anything of value, with which one has been entrusted, with fraudulent intent to deprive the owner thereof."

Case Law: State v. Kelley-a 2000 decision by the highest court of State A. In this case, three office employees were informed of the location of the key to a locked cabinet wherein cash was kept. The employees were authorized to open the cabinet and remove the cash in case of a fire. When no one was present, the defendant opened the cabinet and took the cash. The court held that the defendant was entrusted with the cash within the meaning of the embezzlement statute.

Assignment: Based upon the information presented in the problem, prepare a complete and detailed analysis of the question of whether the client committed embezzlement.