People v. Sisuphan Essay

Appellant Lou Surivan Sisuphan took $22,600 in cash and $7,275.51 from (Toyota Marin the dealership defendant) his employers safe on July 3, 2007. He did this in hopes that a coworker would be held responsible for the disappearance of the spot and would be terminated. Sisuphan was convicted of embezzlement on April 15, 2008. In June 2008 he appeals from the judgment of conviction, contending that the trial hail do a mistake when it failed to instruct the board that at the metre he took the money, he intended to return it in the lead outlaw charges were filed. He also states that the trial court excluded render on that he restored the money to the comp both, claiming this licence proved he neer intended to keep it and whence lacked the demand function for the crime. IssueThe question, before us, therefore, is whether evidence that Sisuphan returned the money reasonably tends to prove he lacked the requisite attentive at the time of the taking. Was his the Fifth Amendmen t right to introduce defence and all pertinent evidence of deduction value to that defense violated? harness of LawThe Fifth Amendment right to present defense and all pertinent evidence of significant value to that defense was non violated because the return of the property is non a defense to embezzlement. Fraudulent intent is an essential element of embezzlement. Although restoration of the property is not a defense, evidence of refund may be relevant to the tip it shows that a defendants intent at the time of the taking was not double-dealing. AnalysisSince Martin Sisuphan was authorized to manage the financing contracts and obtain payments from lenders on behalf of the defendant the movement was effective. It does not matter that there was no intent of stealing the money because region 508 (of the California Penal Code) states Every clerk, agent, or servant of any person who fraudulently appropriates to his ownuse, or secretes with a fraudulent intent to appropriate to his own use, any property of another which has come into his arrest or care by truth of his employment is guilty of embezzlement.HoldingThe liberate is that Susuiphan intended to use the money for a purpose other than to which the dealership entrusted it to him, therefore the evidence that he returned the money before criminal charges were filed is irrelevant. The judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff was sentenced to long hundred days in custody and 3 years of probation.