Commonwealth v. Daniel M. Spaulding

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant's conviction for using his official position to obtain an unwarranted privilege with fraudulent intent. It held that the governing statute was not unconstitutionally vague because its terms gave adequate notice that an officer could not use evidence-room money for personal expenses, even temporarily or with an intent to repay it. The court also held that the evidence was sufficient to establish fraudulent intent and to show that the privilege's fair market value exceeded $1,000. No separate opinions were issued.