Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03639/USCOURTS-ca8-04-03639-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alisha Rae Parisien
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3639

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff–Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of North Dakota.

Alisha Rae Parisien, *

*

Defendant–Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 11, 2005

Filed: June 30, 2005

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

BYE, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Alisha Rae Parisien of felony larceny under 18 U.S.C. § 661

for embezzling more than $1,000 from her employer over the course of eight months.

Parisien appeals, arguing because she never stole more than $1,000 on any given

occasion, all she committed was a series of misdemeanors and it was improper for the

district court1

 to allow the jury to aggregate the embezzled amounts to convict her of

a felony. We affirm. 

Appellate Case: 04-3639 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2005 Entry ID: 1922569
-2-

I

Parisien worked as a cashier at Jollie’s Super Market in Belcourt, North

Dakota. Parisien began embezzling money from her till because of a gambling habit,

which sometimes left her unable to pay for necessities. Initially, Parisien took small

amounts on limited occasions (for example, the first time she embezzled enough to

buy diapers for her child). The thefts, however, eventually increased both in

frequency and magnitude not only to replace money she had gambled away but also

to provide additional money for further gambling. Towards the end of her

employment, Parisien committed ten fraudulent transactions totaling $1,663 in a fiveday period. At trial, the government submitted evidence showing the total embezzled

over eight months equaled approximately $13,000. The evidence also showed,

however, Parisien never took more than $1,000 on a single occasion. 

Parisien accomplished the embezzlement by manipulating three different types

of transactions. The first type of transaction is a return transaction. In a return

transaction, a cashier would refund money to a customer when a product was returned

following a completed purchase. Parisien improperly obtained a manager’s secret

code, which allowed her to generate a return transaction without an actual return.

Parisien would generate false customer returns and take money from the till without

replacing the products to their respective departments. 

The second type of transaction is known as an “error correct” or a void. An

error correct occurs when a customer is checking out from the grocery store and

changes his or her mind about purchasing one item out of several while at the checkout. Using an error correct, the cashier is able to remove the relevant item from the

customer’s bill prior to totaling it up. Parisien would key a high-priced item into her

till without an actual product and then void the transaction with an error correct,

pocketing cash equal to the value of the error correct. 

Appellate Case: 04-3639 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2005 Entry ID: 1922569
2

Parisien is an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, and

Belcourt is located in Indian Country, giving the federal courts jurisdiction over this

offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 1153. 

-3-

The third type involved ATM transactions. A customer wishing to withdraw

cash from the ATM located on the premises would only receive a receipt instead of

cash. The customer would have to bring the receipt to the cashier to receive the

actual money. The receipts were then used in lieu of cash for calculating transactions

when closing out the till after each shift. Parisien keyed ATM transactions into her

register and removed money from her till without a receipt. Parisien used this type

of transaction to obtain the majority of the funds she embezzled. 

In February 2003, Jollie’s discovered through an audit process that ATM

transactions had been occurring at Parisien’s till without ATM tickets accounting for

the funds given. Jollie’s also reviewed statements received from Port Enterprises, the

company that facilitated the ATM, which also showed discrepancies between the

ATM transactions keyed in Parisien’s till and the actual receipts generated by the

ATM. 

On January 14, 2004, a federal grand jury indicted Parisien on one count of

felony larceny in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 661.2

 Section 661 sets forth a felony charge

for individuals who take another's property if the value exceeds $1,000. If the value

of property is less than $1,000, the individual would instead be charged with a

misdemeanor. At trial, one of the issues was whether the loss amount from each of

Parisien’s individual fraudulent transactions – all of which were less than $1,000 –

could be aggregated to reach the level necessary to support the felony charge. The

district court instructed the jury that in order to determine Parisien committed a

felony, the jury must find Parisien stole more than $1,000 during a continuing course

of conduct, meaning at some point Parisien formed an intent to steal money on a

continual basis and thereafter stole in excess of $1,000. This determination would

Appellate Case: 04-3639 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/30/2005 Entry ID: 1922569
-4-

allow the jury to convict Parisien of a felony, rather than individual misdemeanors for

each incident. The jury found Parisien guilty of felony larceny. Parisien filed a

timely appeal, claiming the evidence was insufficient to support a felony conviction.

Furthermore, Parisien claimed federal authorities lacked authority to prosecute her

for misdemeanor conduct. 

II

“We review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction de novo.”

United States v. Rodriguez-Mendez, 336 F.3d 692, 695 (8th Cir. 2003). The evidence

is reviewed in the light most favorable to the verdict and all reasonable inferences are

accepted as established. United States v. Kamerud, 326 F.3d 1008, 1012 (8th Cir.

2003). The verdict must be affirmed “unless no reasonable jury would have found

each essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.

Morin, 338 F.3d 838, 844 (8th Cir. 2003). 

“Generally, the question whether a series of takings constitutes one or more

than one offense . . . must turn on the factual circumstances of each case.” United

States v. Billingslea, 603 F.2d 515, 520 (5th Cir. 1979). A series of offenses can be

aggregated into one offense when they are composed of a “formulation of a plan or

scheme or the setting up of a mechanism which, when put into operation, will result

in the taking or diversion of sums of money on a recurring basis.” Id. Acts forming

an integral part of the first taking which facilitate subsequent takings, or acts taken

in preparation of several takings which facilitate subsequent takings, are relevant to

determine the party’s intent to commit a continuing crime. A party’s intent is also

illustrated by the “temporal and geographical proximity of the several takings.” Id.

Thus, when all acts result from a continuing course of conduct, they may be

aggregated into one crime. 

Appellate Case: 04-3639 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/30/2005 Entry ID: 1922569
-5-

Like the Fifth Circuit in Billingslea, other jurisdictions also allow for

aggregation of a series of takings if they occur within a continuing course of conduct.

See United States v. Smith, 373 F.3d 561, 564 (4th Cir. 2004) (ruling aggregation can

be applied where the defendant’s act “evidences the intent to establish a mechanism

for the automatic and continuous receipt of funds for an indefinite period”); United

States v. Papia, 910 F.2d 1357, 1364-65 (7th Cir. 1990) (adopting the aggregate

approach articulated in Billingslea).

The district court instructed the jury it could find Parisien “engaged in a

continuing course of conduct if at some point during the time frame alleged in the

Indictment, she intended or planned to steal money on a continual basis, and

thereafter stole more than $1,000.” Gov’t App. at 1. Parisien contends the district

court should have focused the jury’s attention only on her intent at the time of the first

taking. We disagree. 

In determining an intent to steal money on a continual basis, the jury was free

to consider not only Parisien’s state of mind at the initial taking, Billingslea, 603 F.2d

at 520 (“Of critical importance is the state of mind or intent of the actor prior to and

simultaneously with the first taking.”), but also subsequent acts she performed which

may have facilitated further takings, id. (“Closely related, and of equal importance,

is evidence of acts done by the accused . . . in preparation for . . . several takings . .

. which facilitate the subsequent takings or in some way aid the defendant in

accomplishing them.”). Here, there was evidence Parisien took preparatory acts

which facilitated subsequent takings. For example, Parisien admitted she

inappropriately obtained a manager’s secret code which she used on several occasions

to perform false return transactions. Moreover, the jury could consider the temporal

proximity of the takings in determining Parisien’s intent. Id. While in the beginning

Parisien’s thefts were in small amounts and sporadic, towards the end of the

embezzlement period Parisien’s thefts were more frequent and much larger.

Parisien’s takings became so frequent that, at one point, she took over $1,000 in one

Appellate Case: 04-3639 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/30/2005 Entry ID: 1922569
3

Because we affirm Parisien’s felony conviction, her challenge to the district

court’s jurisdiction over her alleged misdemeanor conduct is no longer at issue and

thus will not be addressed. 

-6-

week. Parisien admitted to an investigator she engaged in the takings whenever she

could without getting caught. She testified she started taking small amounts, but then

got “greedy.” The district court properly instructed the jury Parisien was guilty of a

felony offense if – at some point during the relevant time period – she formed the

intent to steal on a continual basis and thereafter stole in excess of $1,000, even if that

was not her original intent. 

Parisien also contends there was insufficient evidence to show she formed an

intent to steal over $1,000 because she is a pathological gambler. Parisien had an

expert testify at trial she was a pathological gambler. Parisien’s theory was that she

did not form the intent to steal on a continual basis because each time she gambled

she believed she would win big and, as a result, no longer need to steal from Jollie’s.

The jury was, however, free to disregard Parisien’s theory. United States v. Ervasti,

201 F.3d 1029, 1037 (8th Cir. 2000). “Intent is an issue that turns in large part on the

credibility and demeanor of witnesses, and is peculiarly within the province of the

jury.” United States v. Erdman, 953 F.2d 387, 391 (8th Cir. 1992) (quoting United

States v. Long, 952 F.2d 1520, 1525 (8th Cir. 1991)). 

III

The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion Parisien – at some

point during the time period alleged in the indictment – formed an intent to steal on

a continual basis and thereafter stole more than $1,000. Therefore, we affirm.3

___________________________

Appellate Case: 04-3639 Page: 6 Date Filed: 06/30/2005 Entry ID: 1922569