## Facts

- Thomas Edwin Faulkner, a North American Van Lines truck driver, was assigned to transport 105 refrigerators from San Diego, California to Hartford, Connecticut as part of an interstate shipment.
- While en route, Faulkner stopped in Las Vegas, Nevada and contacted Richard Urbauer, an appliance store owner, offering to sell the refrigerators.
- Urbauer notified law enforcement and asked Faulkner to bring the truck to Urbauer’s store.
- At the store, Faulkner broke the truck’s seals, entered the cargo area, and opened two cartons to show Urbauer the refrigerators.
- Urbauer examined two refrigerators while Faulkner rearranged boxes inside the truck.
- Faulkner and Urbauer attempted to negotiate a sale but did not reach an agreement.
- As Faulkner began to leave, he was arrested.
- A jury convicted Faulkner in the District of Nevada of embezzlement or theft from an interstate shipment under 18 U.S.C. § 659; he appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient because he never removed or sold any refrigerators.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 659 when the defendant, entrusted with an interstate shipment, attempts to sell the goods but does not physically remove them from the vehicle or complete a sale.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- Applying the rule that the verdict must stand if, viewing the evidence in the government’s favor, a rational jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the court held the evidence was sufficient.
- The court rejected the contention that § 659 requires traditional larceny-style asportation or a completed sale.
- The court concluded a rational jury could find that Faulkner assumed unauthorized dominion and control over the shipment with intent to convert it to his own use.

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 659 is construed broadly to protect interstate commerce from interference and is not limited to common-law larceny.
- A “taking” or embezzlement under § 659 may be proved by an unauthorized assumption of dominion and control over goods in interstate shipment with intent to convert, even if the goods are not physically removed from the vehicle.
- On sufficiency review, an appellate court upholds a conviction if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, permits a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

Because Faulkner deviated from his delivery duty and attempted to sell the interstate cargo, breaking seals and displaying the goods in a manner consistent with conversion, the evidence permitted a rational jury to find a § 659 violation without proof of physical removal or a completed sale, and the conviction was affirmed.


United States v. Faulkner, 638 F.2d 129 (9th Cir. 1981)