State's Highest Court to Hear Theft of Services Case

The Tennessee Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could significantly expand the scope of the crime of theft in the state. In a case styled State v. Butler, the defendants are charged with theft of services for allegedly underreporting their income in order to obtain cheaper public housing. The trial court dismissed the indictment based on the fact that the public housing obtained by the defendants does not fall within the definition of “services” under the theft of services statute.

The Tennessee Code Annotated defines “services” for the purposes of theft of services in T.C.A. section 39-11-106(35). The term “services”:
“includes labor, skill, professional service, transportation, telephone, mail, gas, electricity, steam, water, cable television or other public services, accommodations in hotels, restaurants or elsewhere, admissions to exhibitions, use of vehicles or other movable property, and any other activity or product considered in the ordinary course of business to be a service, regardless of whether it is listed in this subdivision (35) or a specific statute exists covering the same or similar conduct”

Thus, the outcome of the case will seemingly depend on whether the Tennessee Supreme Court finds that the provision of public housing is a provision of public services as contemplated by this statute. If they decide that “services” does include the provision of public housing, it will serve to criminalize the practice of underreporting income in order to obtain cheaper public housing accommodations. Further, it will essentially criminalize all deceitful or dishonest conduct in which a person might engage in order to obtain a lower rate for the provision of any public service. This would potentially have a far-reaching effect, ostensibly applying to any person who makes even a slight intentional exaggeration in connection with any public service such as various types of permits, education, utilities, taxes, etc. For this reason, the ruling in Butler will definitely be one to keep an eye on.

Source: State v. Butler, 33 TAM 41-22 (Tenn.Cr.App. 2008), appeal granted 3/23/09, oral argument 2/12/10.