In Batin v. State, 118 Nev. 61, 38 P.3d 880 (Nev. 2002), the defendant worked as a slot machine mechanic for a casino and had access to the inside of the slot machines. Id. at 882.The defendant "had no duties with respect to the paper currency in the slot machine, except to safeguard the funds," and was not to touch the paper currency. Id. The defendant was charged with three counts of embezzlement for taking paper currency from the slot machines. Id. at 882-83. The Supreme Court of Nevada concluded that there was insufficient evidence of entrustment. Id. at 883. The court stated that: In order to be guilty of embezzlement, a defendant must have been entrusted with lawful possession of the property prior to its conversion. . . . A showing that a defendant was given mere access to the property converted is insufficient. Often, an individual is entrusted with access to a particular place or thing without being given dominion and control over the property therein. This is particularly true in instances, like the present one, where the individual is expressly told that he is not allowed to touch the property in the place to which access is granted. Id. at 883-84.