Opinion ID: 2629763
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Correctly Defining Exerts Unauthorized Control

Text: Linehan claims that exerts unauthorized control may be defined only with the definition for theft by embezzlement as contained in former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(b). Linehan's reasoning is that exerts unauthorized control equals theft by embezzlement. According to Linehan's argument, evidence of theft by embezzlement is required whenever a defendant is convicted under the language of exerts unauthorized control. Linehan relies on cases such as Ager, 128 Wash.2d 85, 904 P.2d 715; State v. Joy, 121 Wash.2d 333, 339, 851 P.2d 654 (1993); State v. Coria, 105 Wash.App. 51, 57-59, 17 P.3d 1278 (2001); and State v. Gillespie, 41 Wash. App. 640, 642, 705 P.2d 808 (1985). Linehan takes an overbroad interpretation of the cases cited above. While each case used subsection (7)(b) to define exerts unauthorized control, embezzlement was at issue in each case and subsection (7)(b) was the most appropriate definition of the three definitions in subsection (7) to apply to the facts. However, as the Court of Appeals correctly noted, none of the cases went so far as to say that exerts unauthorized control is defined exclusively by subsection (7)(b) in all factual circumstances. See Ager, 128 Wash.2d at 91-92, 904 P.2d 715 (using former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(b) to define wrongfully obtains and exerts unauthorized control in embezzlement case); Joy, 121 Wash.2d at 339, 851 P.2d 654 (identifying former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(b) as defining exerts unauthorized control in relevant part since theft was by embezzlement); Gillespie, 41 Wash.App. at 643, 705 P.2d 808 (explaining that wrongfully obtains and exerts unauthorized control are both defined in former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(a) and (b) in embezzlement case). Linehan therefore has cited no authority that has held exerts unauthorized control can be defined only by subsection (7)(b). What we find persuasive are the cases that have defined the alternative means of wrongfully obtains and exerts unauthorized control as a unit, using any of the definitions in former RCW 9A.56.010(7), in cases other than those involving embezzlement. See State v. Komok, 113 Wash.2d 810, 814, 783 P.2d 1061 (1989) (using former RCW 9A.56.010(7)(a) to define wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control); State v. Mermis, 105 Wash.App. 738, 747 n. 23, 20 P.3d 1044 (2001); State v. Roose, 90 Wash. App. 513, 518, 957 P.2d 232 (1998) (defendant guilty of theft by exertion of unauthorized control when he carried duffel bag filled with guns out of store); State v. Miller, 92 Wash. App. 693, 701 n. 5, 964 P.2d 1196 (1998) (`wrongfully obtains or exerts unauthorized control means: (a) To take the property... of another....' RCW 9A.56.010(7)(a)). It is up to the trial court to determine which definitions are best supported by the facts of a particular case and to instruct the jury accordingly. See State v. Walker, 136 Wash.2d 767, 771-72, 966 P.2d 883 (1998). The statutory structure of former RCW 9A.56.010(7) also supports our interpretation. The use of or between both phrases and each subsection means that any one or all three definitions can define either phrase. Presumably, the legislature would have split the phrases into separate definitional subsections (as with color or aid of deception in RCW 9A.56.010(4)) had it intended to define them independently. Rather, the two phrases are referenced together throughout the theft statute. See former RCW 9A.56.010(7); RCW 9A.56.020(1)(a). It is permissible to refer to exerts unauthorized control as theft by embezzlement where the defendant was charged with alternative means of theft by exerting unauthorized control, and there is evidence of embezzlement in the form of a violation of a special trust relationship as outlined in subsection (7)(b) or a partnership funds are implicated as outlined in subsection (7)(c). A reading of the cases cited by Linehan, supra, suggests this is precisely what courts have done in that situation. Equating the common usage term embezzlement with the legal definition of exerts unauthorized control in that limited situation, is permissible, but given the confusion it apparently creates we admonish courts to use caution in so doing.