N.C.P.I.—Crim. 216.60A

216.60 LARCENY BY AN EMPLOYEE.1 CLASS C AND H FELONIES.

NOTE WELL: Effective December 1, 1997, if the value

of the money, goods, or other chattels, or any of the

articles, securities, or choses in action is one hundred

thousand dollars ($100,000) or more, the person is

guilty of a Class C felony. If the value of money,

goods, or other chattels, or any of the articles,

securities, or choses in action is less than one hundred

thousand dollars ($100,000), the person is guilty of a

Class H felony. For offenses occurring before December

1, 1997, or if the value is less than one hundred

thousand dollars ($100,000), use N.C.P.I.-Crim. 216.60.

The defendant has been accused of larceny by an employee.

Now I charge that for you to find the defendant guilty of Felonious

Larceny of $100,000 or more by an employee, the State must prove six

things beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that the defendant was an employee of (name employer).

Second, that (name employer) entrusted the defendant with

(describe property) for the purpose of (describe purpose).

Third, that instead of (describe purpose of entrustment, e.g.,

"delivering the property"), the defendant appropriated the (describe

property) to his own (another's) use.

Fourth, that the defendant intended to steal, that is deprive (name

employer) of the (describe property) permanently.2

Fifth, that the defendant knew that he was not entitled to

appropriate the property to his own (another's) use.

And Sixth, that the property was worth $100,000 or more.

So I charge that if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable

doubt that on or about the alleged date, the defendant was an employee

of (name employer) and that in this capacity he received (describe

property) from (name employer) for (describe purpose) and that instead

he appropriated that property to his own (another's) use, intending to

deprive his employer of its use permanently, knowing that he was not

entitled to do this, and that the property was worth $100,000 or more, it

would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of felonious larceny of

$100,000 or more by an employee. However, if you do not so find or

have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, you will not

return a verdict of guilty of felonious larceny of $100,000 or more by an

employee.3

If you do not find the defendant guilty of felonious larceny of

$100,000 or more by an employee, you must determine whether he is

guilty of felonious larceny by an employee. Felonious larceny by an

employee differs from felonious larceny of $100,000 or more by an

employee in that the property need not be worth $100,000 or more.

So I charge that if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable

doubt that on or about the alleged date, the defendant was an employee

of (name employer) and that in this capacity he received (describe

property) from (name employer) for (describe purpose) and that instead

he appropriated that property to his own (another's) use, intending to

deprive his employer of its use permanently, knowing that he was not

entitled to do this, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty

of felonious larceny by an employee. However, if you do not so find or

have reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, it would be

your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.