Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft False shoplifting charge due to mistake

[Ribeyes]

I was in a shopping mall in Stamford and was carrying a lot of things. I looked around to find a basket to carry things but they didn't have 1. I put Afew toiletries in my pocket intending to pay at the register because my hands were full and I thought I would drop it. I paid for everything which came out to over 150 dollars. I was stopped at the door after I forgot that I had 15 dollars worth of items in my pocket. I was taking into the office and they gave me information about charging me. Now I am facing a shoplifting charge. This was purely a mistake because I spent for more in the store and obviously didn't intend to take anything that was a fraction of the amount I paid. What do I do?

 

[shrinkmaster]

You get a Lawyer. Many shoplifters buy and steal both and most say they forgot items stolen. This defense has a low chance of success and could result in stiffer sentence. You met criteria for theft in any state and that is why you were stopped. You need to discuss your defense options with a Lawyer

 

[mightymoose]

You didn't say anything about law enforcement being involved. If there has been no law enforcement contact then forget about it and move on.
Putting things in your pocket was not a bright idea, but to convict you of theft it will have to be proven that you had intent to steal. Without intent there is no theft, although I believe in some jurisdictions concealment of the items is a separate lesser offense. The concealment will otherwise be used to imply your intent to steal. If you are eventually charged with a crime or receive a citation then discuss your options with an attorney.

 

[mightymoose]

You met criteria for theft in any state and that is why you were stopped.

That is not accurate. While there is probable cause to believe theft occurred, intent is an important element that must be proven in court to convict of a crime. Every state theft statute includes intent.
Although we may not believe the stories offered in defense, no crime occurred if intent was not present. That certainly doesn't mean a jury won't still convict, which is why so many people accept plea offers even when they know they did not intend to take anything. It is an imperfect system.

 

[shrinkmaster]

Actually it is accurate in my view. Shoplifters walk out the door with unpaid for items everyday in the same or similar means few escape prosecution. However if OP wants to roll the dice he can escape a guilty verdict based on the "I forgot" defense let him go for it

 

[CdwJava]

Well, the state must prove the defendant had an intent to deprive in order to gain a conviction for theft. Probable cause, of course, is a different animal. The "I forgot" defense may not work, but the state still has to establish intent in some small way. Most often this is done by simply pointing out the actions of the defendant ... after all, how many of us put stuff in our pockets while we are shopping? I'd venture a jury would see it the same way.

 

[Ribeyes]

I was really surprised by all this. They knew it. The bill was close to $200 and I wasn't going to steal the stuff. The security guy said I could look at the camera and said they have a recording. I admitted what happened. I think a cashier knew that the guard must be bored or something. If you look at any camera if they recorded it you should see me struggling with stuff. I didn't look around like a thief.

Police not called. They took my information and told me I would get something in the mail. I was never arrested before. I am worried about police following up and arresting me for a stupid mistake that was unintended. For the time I was more angry that this guy didn't see what everyone else realized.

 

[shrinkmaster]

Your going to get a letter of Civil Demand asking for money to settle civil claim.

 

[mightymoose]

Actually it is accurate in my view.

I understand your opinion as to the likely outcome, but I was referring to your statement about this meeting the criteria for theft in any state.
This does not meet the criteria for theft in any state unless intent is proven in court. The information as presented to us is not theft because it lacks intent. It is up to the accused to determine the best way to proceed.

 

[mightymoose]

...but the state still has to establish intent in some small way. Most often this is done by simply pointing out the actions of the defendant ... after all, how many of us put stuff in our pockets while we are shopping? I'd venture a jury would see it the same way.

In most cases, yes, but not always. If the accused is innocent they need to consider the weight of the circumstantial evidence being used against them. Concealment of the items is certainly not good, but can be overcome.
The jury is the wildcard. Some may convict simply because the items were carried out, but with proper instructions they would be informed that the act of removing the property alone is insufficient. Does a jury pay attention to instructions? Not necessarily.
But by no means is it open and shut. I suspect this is a big reason prosecutors plea this out to lesser offenses so frequently. Intent can be hard to prove and a trial plus appeals and the whole works is not worth it with such a minor offense.

 

[mightymoose]

Police not called. They took my information and told me I would get something in the mail. I was never arrested before. I am worried about police following up and arresting me for a stupid mistake that was unintended. For the time I was more angry that this guy didn't see what everyone else realized.

A clean record is in your favor. You could easily have it reduced to nothing if you ever end up in court.

The opinion of the security guard means nothing. Most of them have very little training and operate within employer guidelines rather than the law. All that matters is the evidence that can be used against you in court if it ever gets there, which sounds very unlikely. The fact the police were not called and no statements taken is greatly in your favor.

You will likely receive a demand letter for a few hundred dollars. Understand that you have no legal obligation to pay the demand or even acknowledge it in any way. You are only required to pay if a judge orders you to.

If you pay the demand then they can't bring a criminal action against you.

If you refuse to pay then they MIGHT attempt a criminal action. They would sill have to prove your intent and you would have your day on court to offer a defense. You would also still have the opportunity to negotiate a lesser plea and avoid court.

The demand letter will be written in a way to intimidate you into paying, but it is your choice, not a legal obligation. It is no different than if I sent you a letter and demanded payment.

 

[shrinkmaster]

Also keep in mind these demand letters are written in accordance with state law. Yes its the law where not paying is not a crime it can provoke the filing of criminal charges or other long term consequences. If you search this site there is an excellent article on Civil demand that might help

 

[hellolife]

I suggest you do a google search and find websites where lawyers offer advice for these scenarios. If you find one that seems knowledgable in your area, check out their profile and see if they have free consultation services which you can take advantage of. If it ends up that you have to go to court, please find a good lawyer to represent you and look for reviews on them. My parents and I struggled and did not know how to handle the situation and ended up paying a lawyer who did not provide me much help or fight to get off with a completely clean record i.e. expungement or ACD. Thankfully, my record is sealed, but I should have gotten a much better outcome for being a first time offender.. which is the same case for you.