AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

A minor, born in 1971, was placed on probation in 1988 after being adjudicated delinquent for consuming alcohol. While on probation, he was entrusted with $60 by an undercover officer to purchase marijuana but instead kept the money with fraudulent intent. The child argued that the entrustment was part of a criminal conspiracy and thus should not constitute embezzlement.

Procedural History

• Children's Court, August 1988: The child was adjudicated delinquent for consuming alcohol and placed on probation for up to two years.
• Children's Court, March 1990: A petition to revoke probation was filed, alleging violations of state law and failure to complete a program. Some allegations were dismissed, but the child admitted to embezzlement.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Child): Argued that public policy should bar prosecution for embezzlement arising from a criminal conspiracy and that the entrustment under the embezzlement statute should not apply to criminal conspiracies.
• Respondent (State): Contended that the child admitted to all elements of embezzlement, including entrustment, and that the statute does not exclude contraband-related entrustments or require lawful possession for embezzlement.

Legal Issues

• Whether public policy considerations bar prosecution for embezzlement when the entrustment arises from a criminal conspiracy.
• Whether the entrustment under the embezzlement statute applies to criminal conspiracies.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Children's Court's decision to revoke the child's probation.

Reasons

Per Minzner J. (Bivins and Black JJ. concurring):

• The child admitted to all elements of embezzlement, including entrustment, and could not challenge the sufficiency of evidence without withdrawing the admission.
• The embezzlement statute does not exclude entrustments involving contraband or require lawful possession for a conviction. The focus is on whether there was fraudulent intent following an entrustment.
• The Children's Code aims to protect children while balancing public interest. The court considered whether the probation violation was consistent with the Code's rehabilitative purposes.
• The officer who entrusted the money did not know the child was on probation, and the child breached the probation agreement by committing embezzlement.
• The court concluded that the probation revocation was justified and affirmed the decision, noting that the Children's Court's jurisdiction over the child would terminate upon the issuance of the mandate.