## Facts

- Andre Archie was on probation and required to wear an electronic monitoring device (EMD) on his ankle.
- As a probation condition, the State provided the EMD to Archie, who signed an agreement accepting responsibility for its care and return.
- Archie removed the EMD, damaged it, and threw it into a field.
- The EMD’s value was more than $250 and less than $2,500.
- The State charged Archie with embezzlement under NMSA 1978, § 30-16-8.
- After a bench trial, Archie was convicted and appealed, arguing the evidence did not satisfy embezzlement’s statutory elements.

## Issues

1. Whether embezzlement requires a traditional fiduciary relationship, or whether proof of entrustment alone is sufficient.
2. Whether removing, damaging, and discarding the EMD constitutes converting entrusted property “to [the defendant’s] own use.”
3. Whether the evidence supported a finding of fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of the property.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the embezzlement conviction.
- The court held that a technical fiduciary relationship is not required; the State need only prove the defendant was entrusted with another’s property.
- The court concluded Archie was lawfully in possession of, and entrusted with, the EMD because the State provided it for probation monitoring and relied on him to safeguard and return it.
- The court held that Archie’s removal, damage, and disposal of the EMD constituted conversion because his actions were inconsistent with the owner’s rights and the authorized purpose.
- The court found sufficient evidence of fraudulent intent based on Archie’s conduct defeating monitoring and depriving the State of the device’s use and value.

## Legal Principles

- Embezzlement under NMSA 1978, § 30-16-8 does not require a formal fiduciary relationship; entrustment and lawful possession can satisfy the “entrusted” element.
- Property provided to a probationer for supervision purposes may be “entrusted” when the State relies on the probationer to maintain and return it.
- “Conversion to one’s own use” includes dealing with entrusted property in a way inconsistent with the owner’s rights, including destruction or disposal that deprives the owner of use and value.
- Fraudulent intent to deprive may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including conduct aimed at defeating the owner’s lawful purpose for the property.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Archie’s embezzlement conviction because the State entrusted him with lawful possession of the monitoring device, and his intentional removal, damage, and disposal of it amounted to conversion with fraudulent intent to deprive the State of its property.


State v. Archie, 943 P.2d 537 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997)