## Facts

- Juan J. Donato-Morales, a U.S. Marshal, went to the Fort Buchanan Army and Air Force Exchange Service store in Puerto Rico to purchase a Mitsubishi VCR.
- Two models were involved: a less expensive HS-U445 VCR in a box marked with a $99 sale price, and a more expensive HS-U746 VCR priced at $189.
- Surveillance video showed Donato remove one VCR from its box, place the empty box on the floor, remove a different VCR from another box, place that VCR into the first box, return the second box to the shelf, and take the first box to checkout.
- Donato paid $99 at the register while receiving the more expensive VCR in the cheaper model’s box.
- Store security stopped him as he attempted to leave; his explanations to security and later testimony conflicted with the recorded events.
- He was charged with larceny of government property under 18 U.S.C. § 641, convicted after a bench trial in the District of Puerto Rico, and appealed on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds regarding intent.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Donato acted with the specific intent required by 18 U.S.C. § 641 to steal a “thing of value.”
2. Whether proof of specific intent under § 641 required evidence that Donato knew the precise price differential between the two VCR models.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that the surveillance video depicting a deliberate box-switching sequence, combined with Donato’s inconsistent statements, permitted a reasonable inference that he intended to obtain a more valuable item than the one he paid for.
- The court rejected the argument that the absence of a price marking on the more expensive model’s box necessarily defeated proof of intent.
- The court also rejected the claim that knowledge of store surveillance cameras negated intent, noting the factfinder was not required to draw that inference.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 641 requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly stole or converted U.S. property and acted with specific intent to steal a “thing of value.”
- Specific intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence, including purposeful conduct that produces a benefit and the defendant’s false or inconsistent exculpatory statements.
- On sufficiency review, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and asks whether any rational trier of fact could find the elements beyond a reasonable doubt; credibility determinations and reasonable inferences belong to the factfinder.
- Section 641 does not require proof that the defendant knew the exact amount of the value taken, so long as the evidence supports intent to take something of value.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld the § 641 conviction because the trial judge could reasonably infer, from the recorded box switch and Donato’s conflicting explanations, that he intentionally obtained a more valuable VCR than the one he paid for, satisfying the statute’s specific-intent requirement.


United States v. Donato-Morales, 382 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2004)