## Facts

- Marlon Javar Batin worked at a casino as a slot machine mechanic.
- His duties included fixing coin jams and refilling the coin “hopper,” a component separate from the machine’s bill validator that stored paper currency.
- Supervisory testimony and Batin’s testimony established that the cash in the bill validator was not to be handled by slot mechanics and that any removal of money for customer refunds required supervisory involvement.
- Batin had an SDS access card that allowed him to open slot machine doors and generated computerized logs of access and certain machine events.
- An auditor discovered approximately $40,000 missing from four slot machines.
- SDS logs showed Batin’s card was used to access the affected machines and that power was turned off during his access, which the casino considered unusual.
- The State charged Batin with three counts of embezzlement based on the theory that he stole paper currency from the bill validators; a jury convicted him on all counts.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the “entrustment” element required for embezzlement under NRS 205.300 when Batin’s job duties did not include handling the bill-validator currency.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Nevada, sitting en banc, reversed the judgment of conviction.
- Applying sufficiency review in the light most favorable to the State, the court held there was no evidence proving that Batin was entrusted with the specific funds allegedly taken.
- The court concluded that Batin was not guilty of embezzlement as a matter of law because the State failed to prove an essential element of the offense.

## Legal Principles

- Under NRS 205.300, entrustment of the specific property is an essential element of embezzlement.
- Entrustment requires a relationship in which the property is committed to the defendant’s care, custody, or control by virtue of employment, agency, or similar trust; mere physical access or opportunity to take property does not satisfy this element.
- A generalized duty to “safeguard” property while performing maintenance does not establish entrustment where the defendant is expressly prohibited from handling the property.
- A conviction cannot stand when there is no evidence supporting an essential element, even if other evidence suggests theft.

## Conclusion

Because the State proved, at most, that Batin had access and an opportunity to steal but did not prove he was entrusted with the bill-validator currency, the embezzlement convictions were reversed for insufficient evidence on the statutory entrustment element.


Batin v. State, 118 Nev. 61, 38 P.3d 880 (Nev. 2002)