INTEROFFICE MEMO TWO
TO: Supervising Attorney
FROM: Paralegal
DATE:
RE: People v Sam Kant
Facts: Our client, Sam Kant, was arrested for petit larceny at Bilmart, a national department store. At his wife’s request, Mr. Kant went to Bilmart on Wednesday, ___, 20__, and purchased a case of six 4 oz. cans of Hoover’s Baked Beans with Bacon. Upon returning home, his wife chastised him for once again failing to purchase what she had requested. Apparently, Mrs. Kant can’t stand the taste of Hoover’s Beans, but is very fond of the Handell’s brand, and was planning to serve them to her book club when she hosted them for lunch the following afternoon. Mrs. Kant ordered her husband to return to Bilmart to exchange the Hoover’s beans for Handell’s beans.
Upon arrival at the store early the next morning, Mr. Kant found that the line for customer service was extremely long due to Bilmart’s annual sponsorship of a major community food drive. In an effort to save time, and thinking the line might be shorter upon his return, Mr. Kant placed the case of Hoover’s beans into a shopping cart, made his way through the store to the bean shelf, and then added the case of Handell’s beans to the cart. However, upon his return, the line had not diminished and it was obvious that Sam would be waiting a considerable amount of time to formalize the exchange. Fearing the wrath of his wife should he not return in time for lunch, Sam placed the case of Hoover’s beans inside a cart filled with what appeared to be merchandise returns in need of re-stocking. With the desired case of Handell’s beans remaining in the shopping cart, Mr. Kant then proceeded to the store’s exit. As he neared the doors, Mr. Kant was approached and detained by store security, who witnessed Sam’s actions, and police were called to the store. Apparently, the cart into which Sam had placed the Hoover’s Beans did not contain returned items to be shelved, but rather, donations to the Bilmart Community Food Drive. Officers Kopp and Slickman questioned Mr. Kant and then cited him for petit larceny.
Discussion: Mr. Kant cannot be convicted of petit larceny according to Criminal Statute Section 143.03(a). First of all, the statute clearly states:
A person is guilty of petit larceny when he deprives the owner of property.
Under Criminal Statute Section 143, larceny is defined as follows:
(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.
Mr. Kant was approaching the exit but had not left the store; had not deprived the owner of the beans, or wrongfully took the beans out of the store. One could argue that he was close to the exit, but still intended to pay for the beans before he left the store. He still had the items in the shopping cart and was not hiding nor trying to conceal the case of beans. Of course, he had passed the point of sale, the cashiers, but ostensibly, one could go anywhere in the store where customers are allowed while still deciding whether or not to buy something or when one wants to pay for it.
In contrast, State v Gross (2001), the defendant also had not yet left the store with the merchandise, but had removed steaks from the wrapper and placed them within his clothing, thereby concealing them from the store personnel. The court found that Gross had the requisite intent to “deprive the owner” of the merchandise, by his actions and the nature of those acts. Gross clearly had the intent and the actions that demonstrated his intent to commit larceny.
His actions of putting the unwanted can of beans in the wrong cart (the donations) it also would not constitute any intent to deprive the owner (the supermarket) of any property, nor would it show that he was “appropriating” the beans for himself. He did not even try to remove them from the premises, nor cover his actions in any way.
Mr. Kant did not deprive anyone of property nor did he show any intent to do so. He was, in fact, openly pushing around the cart with his merchandise unconcealed. He also did not show any intent, nor did he deprive the owner of the “rejected” case of beans, but rather just left them at the store, albeit putting them in the wrong place. Reasonable doubt could be established that he neither had the intent, nor demonstrated the necessary actions consistent with larceny. He could, therefore, not be found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.