## Facts

- Gailon A. Joy was president and sole shareholder of Credit Management Services Corporation (CMS), a Vermont debt-collection agency, and exclusively controlled its operations.
- CMS collected delinquent accounts for clients in exchange for a 40% commission; the remainder was owed to the client even if the debtor paid the client directly after CMS’s involvement.
- CMS deposited debtor payments into a Barre bank account and generally issued clients an invoice and a check within about a month; CMS also maintained a separate Montpelier account to pay operating expenses.
- As CMS encountered financial problems, Joy directed transfers of money from the Barre account into the Montpelier operating account to cover expenses.
- Joy instructed staff to credit client accounts when collections were received, but not to prepare invoices if the Barre account lacked sufficient funds.
- CMS contracted with Stacey Fuel and Lumber Company (Stacey) in June 1981 to collect delinquent accounts.
- On August 14, 1981, CMS received a $1,920.25 check from a Stacey debtor, but did not remit any portion to Stacey and did not disclose receipt of the payment.
- Stacey ended its relationship with CMS in August 1982 and later learned CMS had filed bankruptcy and listed Stacey as a creditor.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that intent to repay is not a defense to embezzlement under 13 V.S.A. § 2531.
2. Whether, viewed as a whole, the jury instructions adequately required proof beyond a reasonable doubt of fraudulent or wrongful intent to appropriate entrusted funds.
3. Whether any claimed instructional error prejudiced the defendant.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed Joy’s conviction for one count of embezzlement under 13 V.S.A. § 2531.
- The court held that intent to repay does not negate embezzlement once entrusted property is intentionally and wrongfully appropriated.
- The court concluded the jury charge, considered in its entirety, properly placed the burden on the State and required a finding that Joy intentionally and fraudulently appropriated Stacey’s funds.

## Legal Principles

- Embezzlement under 13 V.S.A. § 2531 is the wrongful or fraudulent appropriation of property entrusted to the defendant.
- The offense is complete when the defendant knowingly uses entrusted funds in an unauthorized manner; later restitution, ability to repay, or a plan to repay does not excuse or negate the crime.
- Jury instructions are evaluated as a whole; an instruction clarifying that repayment is not a defense is permissible if the charge still requires the jury to find the requisite criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an embezzlement conviction arising from a debt-collection agency’s diversion of client collections, ruling that a defendant’s claimed intent to repay cannot defeat liability where the evidence supports an intentional, unauthorized appropriation of entrusted funds and the jury was properly instructed on fraudulent intent and the State’s burden of proof.


State v. Joy, 549 A.2d 1033 (Vt. 1988)