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
- Whether funds obtained through the bank’s mistaken payment of overdraft checks constituted a non-consensual taking for theft purposes.
- 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.