PEOPLE OF MI V CONNIE SUE FRANZEL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 3, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 191651
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 94-003156 FH
CONNIE SUE FRANZEL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Cavanagh and Saad, J.J.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals by right her jury conviction of conspiracy to commit embezzlement over
$100. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant contends that the circuit court erred in denying her motion to quash the information
because there was no proof at preliminary examination to establish conspiracy to commit embezzlement.
Defendant contends that the evidence showed at most conspiracy to commit larceny or perhaps retail
fraud. The elements of embezzlement under MCL 750.174; MSA 28.371 are (1) the money or
personal property in question must belong to the principal, here, K-Mart; (2) defendant must have had a
relationship of trust with the principal as agent, employee, etc. -- here, the co-conspirator had such
relationship when defendant took property through the co-conspirator’s register lane without paying for
it, and those roles were switched when defendant was cashier; (3) the money or personal property must
have come i to defendant’s possession or under her charge or control because of that relationship of
n
trust with the principal; (4) the money or personal property must have been dishonestly disposed of or
converted to defendant’s own use or taken or secreted with intent to convert to her own use without
consent of the principal; (5) the act must have been done without the consent of the principal; and (6) at
the time of conversion or appropriation, defendant must have intended to defraud or cheat the principal
of some property. There are two types of embezzlement, one occurring when an individual fraudulently
disposes of or converts to his own use money or personal property of his principal, and the second
when an individual conceals with intent to convert to his or her own use money or personal property
without the consent of the principal. People v Wood, 182 Mich App 50, 53; 451 NW2d 563 (1990);
People v Artman, 218 Mich App 236, 241; 553 NW2d 673 (1996).
-1
Here, the conspirator functioning as cashier participated in the fraudulent disposition of the
employer’s property. Possession of the property at the time of such fraudulent disposal was in the
hands of the conspirator pretending to be a retail purchaser, who, although not then functioning as
employee or agent, may have her possession attributed constructively to the cashier. People v Wolfe,
440 Mich 508, 520; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), modified 441 Mich 1201 (1992). There was, therefore,
evidence supporting each element of conspiracy to commit embezzlement, and the trial court did not err
in denying defendant’s motion to quash the information.
Affirmed.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Henry W. Saad
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
