University of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 31 Article 16 Number 1 Summer/Fall 2000

2000 Recent Developments: State v. Cain: Thefty b Is Complete When the Respondent Obtains Control of the Victims Property through the Agency of a Common Carrier in Maryland Camela J. Chapman

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf Part of the Law Commons

Recommended Citation Chapman, Camela J. (2000) "Recent Developments: State v. Cain: Thefty b Deception Is Complete When the Respondent Obtains Control of the Victims Property through the Agency of a Common Carrier in Maryland," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 31 : No. 1 , Article 16. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol31/iss1/16

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recent Developments State v. Cain: By Deception is Complete When the Respondent Obtains Control of the Victims Property Through the Agency of a Common Carrier in Maryland

By Camela Chapman

he Court of Appeals collection for $6,140. On August 28, stated that the general rule under the T of Maryland held that a 1998, Amyot mailed a check is that "a state may Maryland trial court has territorial payable to Cain in that amount to punish only those committed jurisdiction over a prosecution for Cain's home in Georgia. On within its territorial limits." Jd. theft by deception in violation of September 9, 1998, Amyot received (citing Pennington v. State, 308 Maryland Code, Art. 27, § 342, by mail thirty-six Barbie dolls in Md. 727, 730, 521 A.2d 1216, where a victim in Maryland was boxes, all of which were in poor 1217 (1987)). Furthermore, the deceived by an accused located in condition, thereby having little court noted that it was clear under Georgia, via the Internet, and thereby collector value. Amyot contacted common law that an accused's induced to mail a check to the Cain and requested to return the actual presence in the state at the accused in Georgia, in exchange for dolls. Cain terminated contact with time the was committed is goods, which, proved not to be as Amyot. Georgia police would not not necessary. Id. at212, 757 A.2d the accused represented them. State investigate because the at 146. When a crime transcends v. Cain, 360 Md. 205,757 A.2d 142 investigation had been initiated in state lines the court has to make a (2000). In so holding, the court has Maryland. determination of whether an offense established that to exercise On January 21, 1999, Cain was is committed within Maryland's jurisdiction for the crime oftheft by charged under§ 342 in the District jurisdiction. Id. at 213, 757 A.2d deception, the essential element of Court of Maryland, with one count at 146. "Ifthe various elements of respondent obtaining control of a of theft by deception of property a given offense do not all occur subject's property is complete upon with a value of $300 or more. within the borders of a single state, the victim delivering the property Respondent moved to dismiss on the it becomes necessary to decide in to an agent of the accused, in the ground that Maryland lacked which state the offense has been case at bar through the agency of territorial jurisdiction. The district 'committed."' Id. at 213-214, 757 the U.S. Postal Service. court granted the motion. The State A.2d at 146. (citing Penningtion, Respondent Mary Jean Cain appealed to the circuit court, which 308 Md. at 730,521 A.2dat 1217). ("Cain"), a resident of Georgia, affirmed the judgment. The State The court noted that this placed an advertisement on the petitioned the court ofappeals for writ question has been decided in Internet to sell a "mint" collection of certiorari. various ways. ld. at 214,757 A.2d of ninety-five Barbie dolls in their The court began its analysis by at 14 7. Case law from other original boxes, stating that the dolls pointing out that neither the jurisdictions has asserted, for and boxes were all in "collector's Maryland Constitution nor the jurisdictional purposes, that a condition." Debbie Ann Amyot Annotated Code of Maryland crime may have several essential ("Amyot"), a resident of Maryland, addresses jurisdiction over the elements, that where these occur in saw the advertisement and responded offense of theft by deception. !d. at several states, each such state has to it via Internet e-mail and telephone 211, 757 A.2d at 145. Therefore, jurisdiction. !d. After a review of calls to respondent's home in Georgia. they turned to the common law. !d. Maryland law and case law from Amyot agreed to buy the entire doll at 212, 757 A.2d at 145. The court other states, the court stated that the

31.1 U. Bait. L.F. 75 Recent Developments essential element ofthe crime oftheft accused acts through the common jurisdictions who deceive and/or by deception, for jurisdictional carrier, by requesting the property be defraud Maryland residents of their purposes, is when the accused delivered to the carrier, to be shipped property via the Internet, telephone obtains control of the subject's to the accused outside the jurisdiction. and/or electronic communications, property. !d. at 216, 757 A.2d at !d. at 220, 221, 757 A.2d at 151. when the property, is sent by mail or 14 7. Thus, ''the offender may be tried Relying upon the principle that an common carrier from Maryland to where the property was obtained." !d. accused obtains control when a victim, the accused out of state. This is at 216,757 A.2d at 148. relying on the accused's especially important with the The court then reviewed case representation, deposits the property widespread use of the Internet. law from other jurisdictions that to the United States Postal Service, Maryland resident will have judicial support the proposition that when an innocent agent or a common recourse in Maryland, thus making it one uses deception to gain control carrier. !d. The court noted that under more convenient for them to ofanother's property, and the subject Maryland statute, the check itself is prosecute, without having to travel out delivers the property by mail, considered property and it does not of state to retrieve or receive control is obtained when the have to be cashed first to gain value. compensation for the stolen property. property is put in the mail. !d. at !d. at 222, 757 A.2d at 151. 216-217, 757 A.2d at 149. The Finally, the court briefly court pointed out that there was discussed the argument that the some case law to the contrary, federal statutes on mail and wire saying that control is obtained when fraud preempt state laws involving actually received, not when mailed, the mail or electronic but the court rejected this view. !d. communications. !d. at 223, 757 at 218-219, 757 A.2d at 149. The A.2d at 151. The court again turned court stated that the better view ofthe to case law from other jurisdictions element of gaining control of the that have held there was no property is accomplished by looking preemption, because there was "no at when the victim surrenders their support for the proposition that the property to the control ofthe accused, federal interest in preventing fraud whether personally or through the or deception through the use of the defrauding party's agent. !d. at 219, United States mails is so dominant 757 A.2d at 149. as to preclude any state laws on the The court noted that "where subject." !d. at223, 757 A.2dat 152 one absent from a state commits a (quoting Conte & Co. v. Stephan, crime therein through an innocent 713 F. Supp. 1382, 1386 (D. Kan. agent the absentee is liable in the 1989)). The court adopted this view state in which the crime was and ruled that the federal statutes committed to indictment, trial and criminalizing fraud by mail and wire conviction." !d. at 220, 757 A.2d at do not preempt § 342 as applied to 150 (quoting Urciolo v. State, 272 crimes involving the use of the mail Md. 607, 631, 325 A.2d 878, 892 and/or telephone. !d. at 224, 757 (1974)). The court then went on to A.2d at 152. state that this principle has been The holding in State v. Cain is applied in cases in which the innocent an important step taken in Maryland agent was a common carrier, and the in prosecuting residents from other

31.1 U. Bait L.F. 76