## Facts

- James Dally Briggs was employed by the City of Memphis to collect coins from parking meters and coin boxes in an assigned area.
- City officials suspected that money was missing from the meters and boxes in Briggs’s territory.
- Before Briggs began his collection route, police officers used the meter and box keys to open each meter and coin box in his area and counted the coins inside as a controlled check.
- After Briggs completed his route and turned in the collections, the amount he delivered did not match the amount previously counted, showing a shortage.
- Briggs was arrested and gave a statement to police in which he admitted he had been taking meter money for a long time and using it for personal purposes, including playing slot machines.
- Briggs was charged with embezzlement, convicted at trial, and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the proof was sufficient to support Briggs’s embezzlement conviction where officers conducted a controlled pre-count of meter funds, a shortage appeared after Briggs’s collection, and Briggs admitted taking the money.
2. Whether Briggs’s confession was properly admitted, including whether he was advised of his rights and whether his voluntary statement amounted to a waiver of counsel and the right to remain silent.
3. Whether the State sufficiently proved that the money involved was the property of the City of Memphis for purposes of embezzlement.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support embezzlement, relying on the controlled pre-count procedure, the shortage after Briggs handled the collections, and Briggs’s admissions.
- The court held the confession was admissible because the trial court followed an appropriate procedure, Briggs was advised of his rights, and by voluntarily making a statement he waived the right to counsel and to remain silent.
- The court rejected Briggs’s additional challenges to the proof, including objections aimed at the State’s showing that the funds were City property.

## Legal Principles

- On appellate review of a criminal conviction, evidence is evaluated in the light most favorable to the State; the verdict will stand if the proof permits a rational trier of fact to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- In an embezzlement prosecution, evidence that the defendant was entrusted with funds, that a controlled accounting shows a shortage after the defendant’s handling, and that the defendant made incriminating admissions can support a finding of fraudulent appropriation.
- A defendant who, after receiving constitutional warnings, voluntarily gives a statement to law enforcement may be found to have waived the right to counsel and the right to remain silent (citing Monts v. State).
- A trial court does not err by admitting a confession when the record supports that it was voluntary and preceded by appropriate warnings.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Briggs’s embezzlement conviction, concluding that the controlled counting of meter funds before his shift, the shortage after he completed his route, and his own admissions provided sufficient evidence of misappropriation, and that his warned, voluntary statement was properly admitted as a waiver of counsel and the right to remain silent.


Briggs v. State, 463 S.W.2d 161 (1970)