## Facts

- Charles Arthur Clayton and his wife formed Clayton Realty Company with Thomas and Donna Lee Gray in November 1979; the Grays assumed a $40,000 debt and contributed $20,000 for a 50% partnership share.
- On February 13, 1981, the Claytons formed a new partnership, ERA Clayton Realty, with Evan and Consuelo Jones.
- On February 23, 1981, the Claytons and the Grays dissolved the first partnership; Clayton agreed to pay the Grays $300 per month for ten years.
- Clayton made five payments totaling $1,500 to the Grays using checks from the ERA Clayton Realty partnership account.
- The ERA partnership agreement limited checks to partnership purposes and required each partner to pay personal debts and indemnify the partnership and other partners from those debts.
- The State charged Clayton with felony theft under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-401 for using partnership funds to pay a personal obligation.
- The district court found Clayton used ERA partnership funds to pay his personal debt but dismissed the theft charge, ruling that theft does not include a partner’s unauthorized taking of partnership property because it is not “a thing of value of another.”
- The State appealed the dismissal directly to the Colorado Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether a partner’s unauthorized use of partnership funds can constitute theft of “anything of value of another” under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-401.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the felony theft count.
- The court held that, under § 18-4-401, a partner cannot be convicted of theft for unauthorized taking or use of partnership property because the property is not “of another” as against a co-owner partner.
- The court recognized the conduct could support civil remedies (e.g., accounting, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of agreement) but not criminal theft on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- For theft under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-401, the prosecution must show control over “anything of value of another” without authorization plus the required deprivation-related mental state.
- Absent clear statutory direction to the contrary, the phrase “of another” is interpreted consistently with common-law limits that treated partners as co-owners of partnership property, precluding theft/larceny charges by one partner against another for partnership property.
- Misuse of partnership assets may be civilly wrongful without satisfying the statutory elements of criminal theft, particularly the “of another” requirement.

## Conclusion

The court held that a partner’s unauthorized use of partnership funds to pay a personal obligation does not fall within Colorado’s theft statute because partnership property is not “anything of value of another” in relation to a co-owner partner, making dismissal of the theft charge proper.


People v. Clayton, 728 P.2d 723 (Colo. 1986)