Commonwealth v. Labadie (and a companion case) (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-017-14)
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC‑11321 SJC-11322 COMMONWEALTH vs. GEORGE LABADIE (and a companion case[1]). Worcester. October 8, 2013. ‑ February 5, 2014. Present: Ireland, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Gants, Duffly, & Lenk, JJ. Embezzlement. Credit Union. Bank. Larceny. Practice, Criminal, Lesser included offense. Jurisdiction, Superior Court, Federal preemption. Superior Court, Jurisdiction. Federal Preemption. Indictments found and returned in the Superior Court Department on November 10, 2005, and December 5, 2006. The cases were tried before Peter W. Agnes, Jr., J. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review. Paul C. Brennan for Susan Carcieri. Patricia A. DeJuneas for George Labadie. Donna-Marie Haran, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. GANTS, J. The issue presented in this case, before the court on further appellate review, is whether an employee of a credit union “authorized by federal law” may be found guilty under G. L. c. 266, § 52 (§ 52), of embezzlement of the credit union’s funds, and, if not, whether the employee may be found guilty of larceny by embezzlement, in violation of G. L. c. 266, § 30 (§ 30). Because the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt under § 52 that the victim was a “bank, as defined in [G. L. c. 167, § 1],” and because a Federal credit union is not a “bank” within this definition, we conclude that the defendants are entitled to judgments of acquittal as to this charge and vacate the convictions. We also conclude, however, that larceny by embezzlement, in violation of § 30, is a lesser included offense of embezzlement of a bank, in violation of § 52, and that Federal preemption doctrine does not bar State prosecution of a Federal credit union employee for larceny by embezzlement. Because the jury’s verdicts demonstrate that they found the defendants guilty of all the required elements of larceny by embezzlement, we remand for entry of convictions of this lesser included offense and for resentencing. Background. On August 27, 2002, defendant Susan Carcieri was employed part time as an assistant manager of the Wyman Gordon Federal Credit Union (credit union) in Worcester and lived with her husband, codefendant George Labadie, in a home across the street. A Superior Court jury concluded that Carcieri, aided and abetted by Labadie, embezzled credit union funds through the ruse of a fake robbery and convicted them […]