Opinion ID: 2806479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attempted Theft by Deception

Text: [¶12] Beckwith was charged with the Class D offense of attempted theft by deception. A person commits the crime of theft by deception when she “obtains or exercises control over property of another as a result of deception . . . with [the] intent to deprive the other person of the property.” 17-A M.R.S. § 354(1)(A), (B)(4) (2014). A person is guilty of criminal attempt if, acting with the kind of culpability required for the commission of the crime, and with the intent to complete the commission of the crime, the person engages in conduct that in fact constitutes a substantial step toward its commission . . . . A substantial step is any conduct that goes beyond mere preparation and is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the actor’s intent to complete the commission of the crime. 17-A M.R.S. § 152(1) (2014).4 [¶13] The evidence supported the court’s finding that Beckwith was guilty of attempted theft by deception. The record demonstrated that Beckwith requested a transcript refund check for $2,750 made out to her daughter even though the Office did not owe Beckwith’s daughter any money, no one in that time frame had 4 Theft of property exceeding $1,000 in value is a Class C crime. 17-A M.R.S. § 354(1)(B)(4) (2014). Criminal attempt of a Class C crime is a Class D crime. 17-A M.R.S. § 152(1)(D) (2014). Therefore, Beckwith’s attempt to steal over $1,000 is a Class D crime. 7 paid a $2,750 deposit for a transcript, and no one with the daughter’s name had ordered a transcript. Further, because the transcript at issue had already been produced several years earlier, the cost of a copy would have been $546.50, and a party requesting a copy would have been required to pay that fixed amount. On the day the refund check arrived at the Office, the database records did not include an entry for the transcript order. However, the following day—the same day that the Production Associate saw that Beckwith had conducted a Google search for “Alec Winchester”—the database records included an entry, which the court could have found to be backdated, for a transcript ordered by a person with that name and then cancelled on the same day the deposit was purportedly received. The court was therefore entitled to find that Beckwith created a fictitious transaction in order to steal money. The court was also entitled to conclude that Beckwith was guilty of criminal attempt under section 152(1)(D), because although she received the check, the information provided by the Production Associate to others within the Judicial Department triggered an investigation that led to Beckwith’s termination from employment before she negotiated the check.