Lahr v. State
Annotate this Case
Lahr v. State
1992 WY 141
840 P.2d 930
Case Number: 91-266
Decided: 10/30/1992
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Joseph LAHR, Appellant (Defendant),
v.
STATE
of Wyoming, Appellee
(Plaintiff).
Appeal from District Court, CampbellCounty, Dan R. Price, II,
J.
Leonard
Munker, State Public Defender, Gerald M. Gallivan, Director of the Defender Aid
Program, and Monty Barnett, Student Intern for the Defender Aid Program, for appellant.
Joseph
B. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Sylvia Lee Hack, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary B. Guthrie and
Barbara L. Boyer, Sr. Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Before
MACY, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE,
URBIGKIT* and GOLDEN,
JJ.
* Chief Justice at time of oral
argument.
MACY, Chief
Justice.
[¶1.] Although the appellant
raises a variety of issues, the disposition of this appeal turns upon the
sufficiency of the evidence for the crime of larceny by a
bailee.
[¶2.] We reverse and
remand.
[¶3.] The appellant was
brought to trial before a jury for the crime defined by Wyo. Stat. § 6-3-402(b)
(1988):
(b) A bailee, a public
servant as defined by W.S. 6-5-101(a)(vi) or any person entrusted with the
control, care or custody of any money or other property who, with intent to
steal or to deprive the owner of the property, converts the property to his own
or another's use is guilty of larceny.
The
property which the appellant converted to his own use, as a bailee, was alleged
to be valued at $500 or more; hence, the crime was a felony punishable by
imprisonment for not more than ten years and/or a fine of not more than
$10,000.
[¶4.] The appellant became
qualified to instruct courses in "Basic Trauma Life Support" (BTLS) through his
educational and vocational experience. The Alabama Chapter of the AmericanCollege of Emergency Physicians developed
the courses in recognition of a need for good, hands-on continuing education
courses for emergency medical technicians and other emergency medical services
personnel. Since its beginning in 1982, the BTLS program has become accepted as
the standard training course for prehospital trauma care. The international BTLS
chapter is a nonprofit organization, but its employees are paid salaries. The
international organization also intended for the state BTLS chapters to be
nonprofit organizations.
[¶5.] A major point of
contention in the trial of this case was whether the BTLS program "belonged" to
CampbellCountyMemorialHospital or to the Wyoming BTLS chapter.
The appellant was employed as an emergency medical technician at MemorialHospital. According to the BTLS manual:
"The educational and business mechanisms of the management of BTLS within a
given state or province are based on two broad groups: the faculty and
providers, and the administrative leaders and course managers." For a state
program to qualify for affiliation with the international organization, its
faculty, instructors, providers, medical directors, state coordinator, course
director, and course coordinator had to all be individuals who were certified to
participate in the program. No provision existed for a hospital, such as
MemorialHospital, to "own" such a
program. When it became evident that the coal mining companies in and around
Gillette were interested in having the BTLS courses available to them, the
appellant undertook to form a Wyoming BTLS chapter so that he could teach and
coordinate the classes. MemorialHospital played no role in that
process.
[¶6.] Many BTLS courses were
taught at the Emergency Medical Services Base, which was owned by MemorialHospital, while others were taught at mine
sites. In any event, it was established at trial that the appellant received
over $15,000 from various mining companies and from MemorialHospital as payment for the courses. The
appellant deposited those moneys into a checking account which he opened in the
Wyoming BTLS chapter's name. The appellant allegedly received $8,519.43 as a
bailee for MemorialHospital. The remainder of the funds was
used to pay the Wyoming BTLS chapter's legitimate expenses, and MemorialHospital played no role in paying those
expenses.
[¶7.] MemorialHospital was a "sponsor" of the program,
and it provided space for some classes and paid hourly wages to various hospital
employees who taught or otherwise participated in the classes. Many users of the
BTLS classes perceived the program as being MemorialHospital's adjunct, though no one was
specifically told that was the case, and everyone paid for the classes with
checks made payable to the Wyoming BTLS chapter. The appellant billed both the
mining companies and MemorialHospital for the classes and for the
instructors' time, received payments in the Wyoming BTLS chapter's name, and
deposited the payments into the Wyoming BTLS chapter's checking account. The
evidence established that the appellant spent more than half of those funds as
though it was the profit of a business he owned.
[¶8.] Our frequently stated
standard of review for a sufficiency-of-the-evidence question "`is not whether
the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for us, but rather
whether it is sufficient to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt to be drawn by the jury when the evidence is viewed in
the light most favorable to the State.'" Broom v. State, 695 P.2d 640, 642
(Wyo. 1985) (quoting Harvey v. State, 596 P.2d 1386, 1387 (Wyo.
1979)).
[¶9.] Analysis of the
evidence admitted for jury consideration in this particular instance is at first
complicated, and then simplified, by the verdict form given to the jury. The
verdict form gave the jury three options; i.e., whether the appellant was guilty
because he was a "bailee," because he was a "public servant," or because he was
"any person entrusted with the control, care or custody of any money or other
property":
VERDICT
We, the Jury, duly
empaneled to try the above captioned case, after having well and truly tried
this matter, find the defendant, Joseph Lahr:
____ NOT GUILTY of the
offense of conversion by a bailee, a public servant or any person entrusted with
the control, care or custody of any money or other property valued in excess of
$500.00.
X GUILTY of the
offense of conversion by a bailee, a public servant or any person entrusted with
the control, care or custody of any money or other property valued in excess of
$500.00.
[¶10.] Likewise, the instruction given to the
jurors concerning the elements of the crime followed this same
pattern:
INSTRUCTION
NO. 4
[¶11.] The necessary elements of the crime with
which the defendant is charged are:
1. On or about April
10, 1989, through January 31, 1991.
2. In Campbell County, Wyoming.
3. The Defendant,
Joseph Lahr.
4. While being a
bailee or public servant or any person entrusted with the control, care or
custody of any money or other property.
5. With intent to
steal or deprive the owner of the money or other property.
6. Did convert the
money or other property to his own or another's use.
7. With said money or
other property valued in excess of $500.00.
If you find from your
consideration of all the evidence that any of these elements has not been proved
beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant not
guilty.
If, on the other hand,
you find from your consideration of all the evidence that each of these elements
has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find the defendant
guilty.
[¶12.] This arrangement of the elements of the
crime and the verdict form complicate our review because the jury had three
options to choose from: (1) bailee, (2) public servant, and (3) any person
entrusted. We cannot discern from the verdict which of the three options the
jury decided upon. However, this simplifies the answer to the question of the
sufficiency of the evidence because, if the evidence were insufficient to
establish that the appellant could be any one of the three options, we would be
required to reverse the conviction. We hold that the evidence was insufficient
to form the basis for a reasonable inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
that the appellant was a bailee for MemorialHospital. Since it is possible the jury
found the appellant guilty on that basis, we must reverse.
[¶13.] The statutory definition of a bailee,
which accompanies § 6-3-402(b), is simply: "`Bailee' means a person other than
the owner of property who rightfully possesses property." Wyo. Stat. §
6-3-401(a)(i) (1988). That definition of a bailee was the only instruction given
to the jury concerning the subject of a bailment. In all pertinent instances,
the "owners" of the property (money or services) at issue in this case gave
"ownership," not mere possession, of that property to the appellant. See Wells
v. State, 613 P.2d 201, 204 (Wyo. 1980). No express bailment agreement
existed between the appellant and anyone who paid money to him. The jury was not
instructed on the subject, nor could it reasonably have inferred beyond a
reasonable doubt from the evidence that an implied or constructive bailment came
into being. See Cox v. State, 651 P.2d 1137, 1139 (Wyo.
1982).
[¶14.] The classes were organized and taught
with MemorialHospital's full knowledge.
The fairest inference which can be drawn from the record is that MemorialHospital did not like the final result.
The appellant simply was not a bailee under the definition of a "bailee" given
to the jury. We note that, by this decision, we do not intend to perpetuate the
"high stakes sport" of a defendant riding the narrow borderline between larceny
by bailee, embezzlement, and false pretenses. 2 WAYNE R. LAFAVE & AUSTIN W.
SCOTT, JR., SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW § 8.8 (1986). See also Stapleman v. State,
680 P.2d 73 (Wyo. 1984), and McCann v.
United
States, 2 Wyo. 274 (1880). If the facts which
were actually presented to the jury in this case were measured against any one
of those crimes, the result would be basically the same. If the appellee
intended to prove that the appellant was a bailee, the appellee would have
achieved that result by producing additional proof and, more importantly, by
having additional instructions given to the jury. See Tennant v. State, 776 P.2d 761 (Wyo.
1989), for an instance when the proof of larceny by a bailee was held to be
sufficient (the complex facts were tried to the court rather than to a jury).
The law of theft and larceny has been recodified and its language has been
simplified, but proof of the specific crime charged must still be made and
tested against the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. Wyo. Stat. § 6-3-402(d)
(1988). See also 2 LAFAVE & SCOTT, SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW supra at §§ 8.1
to 8.8.
[¶15.] In so holding, we do not condone the
appellant's actions or propose to suggest that no remedy at law exists. This
matter had, from its inception, the markings of a civil problem between the
appellant and Memorial Hospital. The appellee failed in its effort to establish
the existence of a crime or of an intent to deceive or defraud. In its brief,
the appellee used terms such as "bilk," "over billed," and "double billed," and
a great deal of the testimony at trial was along those same lines. Wyoming law does not
necessarily define such behavior as being criminal, even though it might be
readily subject to a remedy in the civil courts.
[¶16.] Reversed and remanded with instructions
that the district court enter a judgment finding the appellant not guilty of the
crimes charged.
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.