Friday, December 5. 1980Gazette Telegraph —3-BTheft conviction upheld on appealBy VICKI PHILLIPS GT Denver BureauDENVER - The Colorado Court of Appeals Thursday turned down a Colorado Springs woman's appeal of a conviction of felony theft from 4th Judicial District Court in Colorado Springs.Court records show that in April 1978, Carole Ann Thompson was elected to the board of directors of the Battered Women Services Cen ter in Colorado Springs. The organization's incorporation papers state that the board is comprisedsolelv of volunteers and that no %board member can be paid.On May 4, 1978. Ms Thompsonwas elected treasurer Later that same month, she applied for a salaried position at the center Although she was not selected to fill the position. Ms Thompsonwas apparently encouraged by the center's director to remain as a volunteer bookkeeper and to continue as the center’s treasurerBetween May 19, 1978, and July 30, 1978, the defendant wrote 14 checks to herself against the center's bank account, according to court records. Ms. Thompson's activities were discovered when the director's payroll check bouncedWhen confronted. Thompson admitted to the director that she had been writing checks to herself for personal reasons and apologized for doing so. On Aug 25, 1978, thedefendant again admitted to the center’s executive committee that she had written numerous checks to herself as advances on her wages.The 4th Judicial District Attorney’s Office was then contactedand an investigator called in on the case. After being advised of her constitutional rights by the investigator, Ms. Thompson again admitted writing the checks. However, she claimed that she wrote the checks because whe thought she was going to be employed fulltime by the center, and that the checks were written either asadvances on her paychecks or as payments for contract labor.At her trial, Thompson insisted that the center's director had secretly authorized her “pay herself’’ for her volunteer work from the center's funds, and that she had never concealed the booksor anv entries in the books which*reflected her payments to herselfThe center’s director, however, testified that the defendant knew'she was not a salaried employee, and that she had never authorizedthe defendant to write any of the checksBefore the trial. Ms Thompson moved to supress the statements she had made to the district attorney and his investigator on grounds thatthe statements were “the fruit of an unlawful arrest, were not voluntarilv made, and were ob-tained in violation of her Mirandarights.”But the Appeals Court found that District Court Judge Robert W. Johnson had not erred in refusing to suppress the statements she made to the district attorney and his investigator.The Appeals Court also held that the defendant's contention that the evidence at her trial was insufficient to sustain a conviction of felony theft because the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable dought that she had the specific intent to commit the crime “lacks merit.”“While the defendant’s testimony supports her assertion that she had a right to the money, there is other substantial evidence in the record to establish that the defendant knew that she was not authorized to write the checks, and that she intended to per-manantly retain the proceeds for herself,” the ruling states.‘Hence, there is sufficient evidence in the record from which the jury could properly infer that the defendant had the necessary specific intent