Analysis of State v.

McGraw
The Case
McGraw was charged with nine counts of theft due to information
saying that he purposefully used unauthorized control over the property of
the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, to-wit: the use of computers and computer
services with intent to deprive the city of Indianapolis. After his conviction
on two counts, he was brought to a trial by jury, which granted his motion to
dismiss the case based on the lack of evidence. However, the Court of
Appeals later reversed the dismissal and ordered the original verdicts to be
maintained.
Background
McGraw had been employed by Indianapolis to serve as a computer
operator. Indianapolis leased computer services with a flat rate system,
essentially meaning that no matter how much the system was used, one still
had to pay the same price. McGraw was given a computer at his desk, and
was given permission to use one part of the computers memory, his private
library, for use in his duties.
Later, McGraw began a private financial venture, selling his products to
his co-workers. He began to use some of the space on his computer to keep
records of the company- who he sold what to, for how much, and when.
Several times, he was reprimanded for selling his products both in the office
and during work hours, and he was eventually fired for not doing his job to a

satisfactory level, as well as using his work time to do personal things,

namely his personal sales.
When McGraw was hired, Indianapolis gave him a standard handbook,
given to all employees, on the general restrictions against unauthorized use
of property belonging to the city. However, several other employees
occasionally used their computers for personal use or entertainment. While
McGraws supervisor was aware that he was using his computer to keep
personal business records, he failed to investigate it, nor reprimand McGraw
for doing so. In fact, his keeping personal business records was not stated as
a reason for firing him.
Despite the citys protests, after being fired, McGraw applied for and
received unemployment benefits. He then asked an old co-worker to print
out his business records and to then delete the data from the private library.
However, the employee instead printed out the records, gave them to his
supervisor, and the print copy was used as the key evidence in criminal
charges against McGraw.
Defense
McGraws main defense was that while his use of Indianapoliss
computer may have been unauthorized, and that that use of Indianapoliss
property was under the theft statute, he remained innocent of one key part.
The theft statue of Indiana says A person who knowingly or intentionally
exerts unauthorized control over property of another person with intent to

deprive the other of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a class D
felony. McGraw says that while the use of the computer may have helped
him, it did not harm Indianapolis. The trial by jury saw this as reasonable, but
the Court of Appeals denied this.

Reflection
I must declare that I do not agree with the decision made by the Court
of Appeals. This is mainly based on one piece of the backgroundIndianapolis charged their computer service fees on a flat rate. No matter
how much the computer was used, they had to pay the same amount of
money for its use. It is of no doubt in my mind that McGraw did use city
property to conduct personal business. Were the city to charge computer
services on an hourly basis, I would have no issue with the courts decision.
However, it did not. Yes, McGraw used the computer for his personal
business- but this did not cost Indianapolis anything more than it would have
were he to use it solely for his work. His use of the computers absolutely did
not harm Indianapolis financially- no more, at least, than wasting some of
their money on McGraws salary. They fired McGraw- thereby keeping him
from gaining anything more from this. And it wasnt because of the computer
itself, it was for his unsatisfactory job performance. He lost his job, which I
agree with. Dont screw around when youre expected to work. Charging him

with theft? That I find to be crossing a line. He used work-provided resources

for personal use. Does this mean that one cannot use a pencil given by the
company to fill out a crossword puzzle at work? Will they get sued for the
unauthorized use of a pencil? And if not- why should it be any different for
computer usage? He didnt harm Indianapolis, and so, I find this decision to
be wrong.