Parisi v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed Parisi's conviction for home improvement fraud, holding that the State presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he appropriated the Finns' payment and used it for purposes other than constructing their deck. The Court also held that Parisi preserved his challenge to the required mental state by arguing below that the State failed to prove every element of the offense, so plain-error review did not apply. The Court further held that the charged intent could be established under the statutory intent-to-deprive-or-appropriate standard rather than requiring proof of fraudulent conversion.