## Facts

- John A. Langford sought a $225,000 loan from Hibernia National Bank to buy a restaurant; the bank declined due to his credit history.
- About a week later, Langford opened an interest-bearing checking (NOW) account at the same branch, depositing $5,362.21.
- Langford did not request, and the bank did not grant, overdraft privileges.
- Due to an internal coding error in the bank’s new computer system, Langford’s account was incorrectly set to permit payment of checks with unlimited overdrafts.
- The bank generated daily overdraft reports intended for managerial review, but the reports regarding Langford’s account were not reviewed.
- From April 1 to September 24, 1981, Langford wrote more than 200 checks without making additional deposits; the bank paid them despite the insufficient balance.
- Langford received repeated overdraft notices and periodic statements reflecting a substantial negative balance while he continued writing checks.
- The bank discovered the account was overdrawn by $848,879.39 and demanded repayment; Langford could not pay and offered to execute a promissory note.
- Langford was tried in a bench trial, convicted of theft (value over $500), and sentenced to eight years at hard labor.

## Issues

1. Whether funds obtained through the bank’s mistaken payment of overdraft checks constituted a non-consensual taking for theft purposes.
2. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Langford had the specific intent to permanently deprive the bank of its funds, despite the bank’s negligence and his later offer to sign a note.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit affirmed the conviction and eight-year hard labor sentence.
- The court held the evidence sufficient to prove theft even though the bank’s computer error and internal failures allowed the overdrafts.
- The court found Langford’s continued check-writing after repeated notice of overdrafts supported knowledge of the lack of entitlement and the required criminal intent.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant may commit theft by knowingly exploiting another’s mistake to obtain property the defendant knows he is not authorized to take.
- A victim’s administrative or computer error that mechanically transfers funds does not constitute informed consent to the taking for theft purposes.
- Specific intent to permanently deprive may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including repeated notice of an overdraft and continued spending far beyond any legitimate account balance.
- Post-discovery proposals to repay (such as offering a promissory note) do not necessarily negate prior intent formed and acted upon during the course of the taking.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Langford’s theft conviction, concluding that a bank’s mistaken honoring of overdraft checks did not equal consent and that Langford’s continued, large-scale use of funds after repeated overdraft notice permitted an inference of intent to permanently deprive the bank of its money.


State v. Langford, 467 So. 2d 41 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1985)