Pregnant Woman Arrested for "Stealing" Sandwich

Remove all ads!

I wouldn't say so, unless she was hiding in the corner eating it her actions were plain for all to see. But you're right about it being reasonable inferences, whether that was concealment or not would have been up to the courts to decide.

 

This has been on my mind since this debate started, so I went ahead and asked the solicitor who deals with legal for the club her opinion. She said that the prosecution doesnt have to prove that the defendant intended to steal the item, only that they took it without paying - the defence has to prove that the couple intended to pay for it.

 

...and most of us, if we're really being honest, will acknowledge that we've accidentally left a store with an item that wasn't paid for (usually something from the underneath the cart or a really small item that was somehow missed). It doesn't make us criminals -- just human.

 

Shosh,
you got a lawyer's response on who has to prove what i.e. an answer dealing with procedural matters. You certainly didn't ask her if negligence suffices to commit the offence of theft since in that case she would have answered in the negative.

Keep in mind that a charge doesn't become true by merit of being made. Even if an accused party cannot defend itself, that doesn't mean that charges are accurately describing objective reality. You do recall that Saddam was never able to prove that he didn't have WMD? That couple cannot prove that they did not want to steal the sandwiches.

What has been 'stolen' were consumables. Odds are that they have only been forgotten because they had been consumed. They probably did throw the wrapper paper away, so there was no reminder left in the shopping cart. It is quite plausible they simply forgot. That they then proceeded to pay for their other goods suggests that they were acting in good faith.

Even when that certainly indicates a lack of diligence, it still doesn't amount to theft. The defence has a good case to make.

 

after reading this post, I did this afternoon.

she said that negligence is exactly what this case would be built on and that a magistrate court would find that they didnt take reasonable care to pay for the item they had already used for its purpose.

Negligence is simply described as : is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.

They did not exercise enough care to make sure they paid for that item.

can I get out of a speeding ticket because I didnt intent to go more then 30 down hill? no, I didnt exercise enough care to be sure I didnt exceed the speed limit.

if this were to be the case then they have already shoplifted this item before they even reach the till.

 

The salient point is that their behaviour can be interpreted as theft. Your solicitor is correct. The trouble is that you still don't understand her.

And yes, the couple was negligent. What the couple's negligence does makes is simply to create the external appearance of theft (actus reus). By the looks of the matter they may just have stolen. This may justify charges. Your solicitor is right. It's just that we aren't and haven't been talking about that.

What you still don't get is this: Their intentions (mens rea) still are another matter, and they still do matter. They must be proven guilty of a crime.

Charges are just that. Charges don't equal guilt. Guilt is being determined in court. This is what the solicitor was hinting at when referring to who has to prove what: To dispel the appearance of theft, the couple is called upon to make their case of what their inner motives were, i.e. to credibly convince the judge that they forgot (and they have a reasonably good case to make) - if the company is willing to press charges (unlikely, since they appear to believe the couple). The low value of the goods in question and the corresponding lack of public interest due to the negligible social impact makes it unlikely that a prosecutor will pursue such a case with zeal. But then, it happened in America so everything is possible.

The actual problem and the real source of disagreement between us is far simpler than all that. It is actually simply that I, and others, believe the couple is honest, whereas you, misanthropically, don't. They're guilty until proven innocent to you. That's a matter of world view and a difference unlikely to be resolved here.

 

Ragusa, they do not need to be proven guilty. The prosecutors simply need to convince a judge or jury of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In most US courts, walking out without paying is all that's necessary to convince a judge or jury of guilt.

Personally I don't really care about the couples intent. I think everyone involved in the incident acted stupidly. This should have been resolved in the store.

 

Maybe in some cases, but with the circumstances surrounding this case I am more inclined to think a jury would acquit them.

 

Shoplifting is not dealt with by jury in the UK it goes to magistrates court, as it is a minor offence being convicted by jury is not needed, 3 magistrates weigh the evidence and punish appropreately.

Our solicitor was pretty confident that if CPS brought charges the evidence would result in conviction but in light of the circumstances the magistrates would give a suspended sentence.

nope, you are ofetn wrong about me rags, the simple fact is that I dont care about intentions, I believe that the couple probably forgot as you do, but it doesnt change the fact that the store responded correctly, as did the police.

 

FWIW, I can second Shoshino's consult on the whole intent question. I asked one of my bosses who is a 30+ year veteran of retail loss prevention and is considered an 'expert' (gives expert testimony at trial, etc.) about this case specifically and he says that intent is needed only when inside the store, and that it can be demonstrated by some of the things listed above - putting something in your pocket, pants, etc. When you're outside the store with an item you haven't paid for, intent is no longer material.

 

Both. The victim/accuser doesn't have to show intent once someone is outside the store (with unpurchased items). Being so is considered prima facie evidence of a crime for which you will be considered guilty unless you can show otherwise at trial.

e.g., if you are caught outside of a store with an unpurchased apple, arrested, charged with shoplifting, and tried, and if you stand mute at trial, the evidence of you being outside the store in possession of the apple will automatically be sufficient to convict you.

 

I disagree with those values. Without intent the punishment of a theft conviction is altogether excessive. A simple slip of the mind would have caused a criminal record and looks extremely bad on a resume. Imagine trying to get a job, as hard as it is now, with a background check saying you stole something, all because of an accident. That isn't justice.

 

Anyone who would put "shoplifting" under skills deserves to be unemployed ... but then I've seen worse things on resumes.

 

Actually you don't believe the 30 year expert is correct ...

I think you're still missing the point here - intent doesn't matter outside the store. It's prima facie - as you say, "sufficient to establish a fact;" that fact being that you stole something.

 

Gaer, does that 30+ year expert of retail loss prevention actually prosecute those shoplifting cases? In our legal system, the state does indeed bear the additional burden of proving intent. You misunderstand what prima facie evidence is and how it is used. The literal translation of prima facie is "at first face" -- a more colloquial interpretation would be "at first blush". You seem to be confusing prima facie with res ipsa loquitur, translating literally as "the thing speaks for itself". In such an instance, where the evidence speaks for itself, the facts are so obvious that no further explanation is needed.

Example -- A man, "Steve" shot an intruder who ran into his shop yelling and waving a pistol the intruder now lays unconscious on his floor moaning. At this point, there is prima facie evidence that Steve committed a crime -- someone came into Steve's shop, and Steve shot him with his gun. In the real world, it would be unusual for a case like this to even get a grand jury hearing, since it was obviously self defense. Most prosecutors won't touch this case. We'll add a little to this, though. After shooting the intruder and verifying that he was unconscious, Steve grabbed another gun and approached the intruder. He kicked him lightly a few times to see if the intruder was unconscious. He grabbed the intruder's gun, opened the chamber, and one of those red cap gun speed-loaders came out -- the intruder only had a cap gun!

At this point, the prima facie evidence is still not sufficient to secure a conviction, and probably isn't even enough for a grand jury hearing -- sure, the assailant only had a cap gun, but the state would have to prove that Steve actually knew it was a cap gun in order to press charges. We'll add a little more -- throwing the cap gun aside, Steve then fires six rounds directly into the intruder's head at point blank range. Res Ipsa Loquitur. The intruder was unarmed and helpless. Intent need not be proven, because no reasonable person will believe that Steve emptied his pistol into the head of his helpless and unarmed man at point blank range without the intent to kill him.

If Steve had stopped short of firing those 5 shots, the prima facie evidence would have been insufficient on its own to secure a conviction, and probably wasn't enough to secure a hearing, let alone a trial. After those 5 shots were fired, there is no longer any need to prove intent, since the facts of the case speak for themselves.

Res ipsa Loquitur almost certainly applies in most shoplifting cases -- they are usually cut and dry -- it just doesn't apply to this one.

 

gods sake, I ask a solicitor what she thinks and she said if charged it would be easy to bring a conviction, and it is still argued against.

ok... how many of you have done jury duty?

 

@Drew, thanks for your illustration, it is informative. I guess my understanding of prima facie as applies to real world scenarios is different than yours, but I am not and have never said I am an attorney, so any legal 'arguments' I make should be taken as such to begin with.

At any rate, bear in mind that what I said specifically regarding my boss' so-called expert opinion is this: if you're outside the store with unpurchased items, the victim needn't prove intent. Period. What this means as translated by me is that he has been involved in numerous scenarios where persons are caught outside stores with unpuchased items, arrested, charged, and successfully prosecuted with no other evidence than the fact that they were outside the store with unpurchased items and the arresting individual's eyewitness testimony.

This comes from a guy who has indeed been involved in probably hundreds of shoplifting prosecutions, though of course not as a prosecutor (he isn't one). I guess you can take that or leave it.