This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D was a clerk at a store that had two cash registers and a drop-box. There was a slit in the counter; money pushed through this slit went into the drop-box. The drop-box was locked with two padlocks. The keys to which were retained by the manager. When money accumulated in the registers, portions of the accumulation were placed in the drop-box using the slit. On the night in question, the manager removed the money from the drop-box. About 11:00 p. m., the clerk on duty closed down one of the registers, placing the money from that register into the drop-box. D went on duty at midnight. The one register being used contained $50 to $75. At 3:00 a. m., D was absent from the store. The drop-box had been pried open and its money removed. There is evidence that D took a total of $ 612 from the drop-box and the register being used. D was the only clerk on duty when the money was taken. D was 'in charge of the whole store' and 'responsible for the entire store.' D claimed that there was no proof that the money taken from the register was more than 100. D also claimed he did not have the keys to the drop box, nor permission or authority to get any money out of the box. The court denied D’s motion for a directed verdict on the charge of embezzlement over $ 100. The trial court held that D had been entrusted with 'everything there on the premises,' including the drop-box. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.