INTEROFFICE MEMO TWO ASSIGNMENT: Review the facts of the Sam Kant case from Memo

Question

INTEROFFICE MEMO TWO

ASSIGNMENT: Review the facts of the Sam Kant case from Memo One. For this assignment, Mr. Kant stands charged with petit larceny rather than shoplifting. Please thoroughly apply the law provided below, based on your lessons and reading material regarding legal analysis and writing. In preparing your memorandum, please consult the sample Legal Memorandums from PCD and Statsky. Discuss whether or not you think Mr. Kant could be convicted of petit larceny pursuant to the law provided. Please note, this is a closed memo and no outside research should be conducted. Apply only the law as provided below.

For the purposes of this assignment, Sam Kant stands charged with Petit Larceny under Criminal Statute §143.03(a) which provides the following:

A person is guilty of petit larceny when he deprives the owner of property.
Petit larceny is a class “A” misdemeanor

Criminal Statute § 143.00 Larceny; Defined

(1) A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property, or to appropriate the same to himself, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.

In State v. Gross (2001) the defendant moved for dismissal of petit larceny charges because he had not yet left the store with the merchandise in his possession. Defendant, Gross, removed 2 rib eye steaks from the plastic wrapping in which they were encased, placing them below his shirt and under each armpit, and was apprehended after having passed the last point of purchase, but prior to reaching the exit doors. The court held that: (1) a defendant demonstrates the requisite intent to deprive an owner when he acts in a manner that is contrary to those which would be undertaken by an ordinary person, under ordinary circumstances for the situation involved, and (2) actions that are inconsistent with and are ultimately adverse to the owner’s interest may be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) the nature of these acts may be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite the defendant not having left the premises.

Explanation / Answer

Having analyzed the facts of the case and the memos, it is clear that the criminal statute §143.03(a) does not fully apply in this case. Also the precedent of State vs. Gross is different from Sam Kant case in many respects.

As per statute, the elements of guilt, wrongful acquisition and withholding and the intent to deprive the property owner are essential to conviction.

Analyzing each of these elements separately, we see that the case does not hold.

Also when Sam Kant was apprehended by the store security, he did not make an attempt to leave the premises. This also proves his bona-fide intent, which was not to act in a manner with intent to deprive the owner of the property.

Therefore it is clear from all of the three elements of fact analyzed in view of the law provided, that Sam Kant could not be convicted for petit larceny and the precedent of State vs. Gross does not apply, as the intentions and conduct in both the cases are quite dissimilar.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.