## Facts

- Mark Kane Bugely rented an automobile valued at about $6,500 for a two-day term ending September 16, 1985.
- The written rental agreement allowed extensions if Bugely called the rental company and obtained approval.
- Bugely called and obtained two extensions in that manner.
- The last approved extension set a return date of September 27, 1985.
- Bugely did not return the car on September 27 and did not call to request any additional extension.
- The rental company attempted to contact Bugely but was unable to reach him.
- After the missed return, the company reported the car missing to law enforcement.
- About two weeks later, police located the vehicle in another city.
- The State charged Bugely with theft by misappropriation under an Iowa statute addressing failure to return rented property within a specified period after the agreed return date.
- Following a bench trial, the district court found that Bugely failed to return the car within three days after September 27 and inferred from that failure and the surrounding circumstances that Bugely had misappropriated the vehicle.
- The district court found Bugely guilty, and Bugely appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for theft by misappropriation based on Bugely’s failure to return the rental car within three days after the final agreed return date.
2. Whether the trial court could infer the required criminal intent from Bugely’s nonreturn and lack of communication, given that the vehicle was originally obtained lawfully under a rental contract.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Iowa affirmed the conviction.
- The court concluded that Bugely’s failure to return the car within the statutory period following the September 27 return date, combined with his failure to contact the rental company for another extension and the later recovery of the car in another city, permitted the fact finder to infer misappropriation.
- Applying the standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence, the court held that the record supported the trial judge’s finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Legal Principles

- A person who lawfully obtains property under a rental agreement may commit theft by misappropriation if he fails to return the property within the period specified by the governing statute after the agreed return date.
- A statutory provision treating nonreturn within a short period (here, three days after the specified return date) as evidence of misappropriation allows the fact finder to infer the required criminal intent, especially when paired with surrounding conduct such as silence and continued retention.
- On appellate review of a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence, the court considers whether substantial evidence supports the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and gives deference to reasonable inferences drawn by the trial court as fact finder.

## Conclusion

State v. Bugely affirmed an Iowa bench-trial conviction for theft by misappropriation where the defendant rented a car, obtained approved extensions through September 27, 1985, then neither returned the car nor sought another extension, and the car was recovered about two weeks later in another city; the court held that the statutory nonreturn period and the surrounding circumstances supported an inference of misappropriation and provided sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.


State v. Bugely, 408 N.W.2d 394 (1987)