People v sisuphan

Adams for Defendants and Respondents. The defendants were accused of grand theft and conspiracy to commit grand theft. The original information containing these accusations was filed on May 20, ; in one count thereof alleged a grand theft offense occurring between September 21,and March 31, ; and in the second count thereof, alleged the conspiracy charge.

People v sisuphan

Attorney s appearing for the Case William L. Osterhoudt and Dolores T. Osterhoudt for Defendant and Appellant.

He was convicted of embezzlement Pen. Sisuphan contends that the trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury that Penal Code section provided a defense to embezzlement if the evidence showed 1 that at the time he took the money, he intended to return it, and 2 that he did so voluntarily People v sisuphan criminal charges were filed against him.

We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment. He was responsible for ensuring that the proper paperwork was completed for each sale, and he supervised two finance managers who prepared sales contracts, received payments from customers, and issued receipts for car purchases.

Sisuphan complained repeatedly to management about the performance and attitude of one of the finance managers, Ian McClelland McClelland.

Specifically, Sisuphan reported that McClelland made frequent mistakes in preparing paperwork and refused to follow his direction. Errors in paperwork delay the income generated by the dealership and strain its relationships with lenders, which Sisuphan was required to maintain.

Please Sign In or Register

General manager Michael Christian Christian opted not to terminate McClelland "because he brought a lot of money into the dealership. McClelland prepared a receipt, placed the cash, both checks, and a copy of the receipt in a large manila envelope, and took the envelope to the company safe in Sisuphan's office.

McClelland placed the envelope into the hopper at the top of the safe and turned the handle to rotate the hopper and drop its contents down into the safe.

The envelope, which was stuffed with a large amount of cash, did not drop all the way down into the safe and became lodged, with a portion "sticking out.

He paged another salesman for assistance but received no response and asked Sisuphan to keep an eye on the envelope while he went to the showroom. While McClelland was gone, Sisuphan "wiggled" the envelope free, extracted it from the safe, and kept it. On the morning of July 5,one of the bookkeepers discovered in this manner that the payment for the Peacock purchase was missing.

She placed a Post-it note for Sisuphan on the corresponding page of the receipt book, inquiring, "Where's money? When she asked Sisuphan about the missing payment, "[h]e said they were looking into it. Sisuphan was absent from work for the next 10 days July because his father was ill.

The bookkeeper continued to leave him messages about the missing money. On July 11,she sent an e-mail to Christian, the controller, the general sales manager, and Sisuphan about "the check Realizing that the matter was more serious than he had believed, Christian followed up with the customer, made a police report, and filed a claim with the dealership's insurer.

He called all the managers together and told them he would not bring criminal charges if the money was returned within 24 hours. Sisuphan learned of Christian's amnesty overture either at a meeting or in a telephone conversation, but continued to deny any knowledge of what had happened to the money.

Christian notified the dealership's owner of the problem and, at his direction, hired a private investigator, who interviewed a number of employees, including Sisuphan, on July 18, On the evening of July 18,Sisuphan met for several hours with Christian and the general sales manager, Joel Hanson Hansonabout problems in the finance department, primarily, the accuracy of the paperwork and the dealership's relationships with lenders.

They discussed concerns that sloppy management had led to the disappearance of the money and that the incident had impacted morale, causing employees to question one another. Shortly after the meeting ended, Sisuphan returned to Christian's office and admitted that he had taken the money.

He claimed he had no intention of stealing it and had taken it to get McClelland fired. He said he had not returned the money during the hour amnesty period because he did not believe Christian's assurance that no punitive action would be taken.

Penal Code - California "Embezzlement" Laws

Later that night, Sisuphan telephoned Hanson and confessed to him as well.Illinois Official Reports. Appellate Court. People v. Mason, IL App (4th) Appellate Court Caption THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.

ERIC J. MASON, Defendant-Appellant. The Judicial View is a resource for attorneys and legal professionals containing case summaries, judicial opinions, legal rulings, law review articles, law firm articles and important legal news. Brief People v. Sisuphan Facts: D (Sisuphan) was the director of finance at Toyota of Marin dealership.

D complained repeatedly to management about the performance of one of his co-workers (McClelland). Management did nothing about it because the person he complained about brought in a lot of money for the company. McClelland accepted a large payment from a customer for a vehicle she purchased %(1).

Because Sisuphan's first two instructions allocate the burden of proof to the People to disprove the alleged defense, we question whether the trial court could properly have .

People v sisuphan

DOCKET NO. No. A JUDGES Martin J. Jenkins. ATTORNEY(S) William L. Osterhoudt and Dolores T. Osterhoudt for Defendant and Appellant.

Briefing Cases--The IRAC Method When briefing a case, your goal is to reduce the information from the case into a one-page case brief. When we discuss the case in class, you will immediately be able to.