This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D had a computer consulting business he called Pen, Paper, Mouse Ink. The law firm of Demler, Armstrong, and Rowland hired D as its first computer administrator. D informed the law firm that it was not in legal compliance because it did not have Microsoft licenses for all its computers. D stated he could acquire the necessary Microsoft licenses at a large discount from Billpoint Company and it would cost $37,290.94. The partners approved the expenditure to acquire the necessary Microsoft licenses. They gave D the partnership’s credit card to buy the licenses from Billpoint Company. D resigned from his position a few days later on May 3, 1999. D said the licenses were in a locked filing cabinet in the paralegal office. No licenses were found. D offered to call the vendor, Billpoint Company, to ask them to send the firm additional licenses, or copies of the licenses, by facsimile transmission. When the firm got the fax, they suspected something was wrong. The law firm’s name was incorrect, the Microsoft certificate of authenticity was illegible, the products purportedly purchased were incorrect, and the alleged purchase price was incorrect. The firm contacted a Billpoint representative who explained Billpoint was not a vendor of any product, was not a software company, and did not sell software licenses. The representative explained Billpoint was primarily a credit card processing company for e-Bay but processed other Internet transactions as well. The representative stated Billpoint functioned solely as a clearinghouse between buyers and sellers. D found out the transaction had been canceled and tried to run the scam again. D tried to run the scam while the firm, D, and Billpoint were on the phone all at the same time. The scam was uncovered, and the debit to the law firm’s credit card account was reversed within the month. The firm purchased real licenses for $20,000. D even went to another firm and tried the same scam, this time for $134,420. The State charged D for the issues with the law firm with grand theft by embezzlement and by false pretenses. A jury convicted D of both counts of grand theft by false pretenses. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.