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 effective on July 3, 2007. He did this in hopes that a coworker would be held responsible for the fade of the money and would be terminated. Sisuphan was convicted of embezzlement on April 15, 2008. In June 2008 he appeals from the fancy of conviction, contending that the trial court made a mistake when it failed to instruct the gore that at the time he took the money, he mean to return it earlier criminal charges were filed. He also states that the trial court excluded picture on that he restored the money to the company, claiming this order proved he never mean to keep it and consequently lacked the requisite jailed for the crime. IssueThe question, before us, therefore, is whether evidence that Sisuphan returned the money reasonably tends to prove he lacked the requisite intent at the time of the taking. Was his the Fifth Amendment right to presen t defense and all minded(p) evidence of significance value to that defense violated? Rule of fairnessThe Fifth Amendment right to present defense and all pertinent evidence of significant value to that defense was not violated because the return of the situation is not a defense to embezzlement. Fraudulent intent is an essential subdivision of embezzlement. Although restoration of the property is not a defense, evidence of repayment whitethorn be relevant to the extent it shows that a defendants intent at the time of the taking was not fraudulent. AnalysisSince Martin Sisuphan was authorized to carry off the financing contracts and obtain payments from lenders on behalf of the defendant the lawsuit was effective. It does not yield that there was no intent of stealing the money because Section 508 (of the atomic number 20 Penal Code) states Every clerk, agent, or servant of any person who fraudulently appropriates to his possess use, or secretes with a fraudulent intent t o appropriate to his own use, any property of another which has come into his control or commission by virtue of his employment is guilty of embezzlement.HoldingThe issue 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 120 days in custody and 3 years of probation.