FACTS: Sam Kant, stands convicted of shoplifting/petit larceny (as dictated by y
ID: 465915 • Letter: F
Question
FACTS: Sam Kant, stands convicted of shoplifting/petit larceny (as dictated by your state statutes) from 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 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 Handell’s beans 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 Shoplifting.
Using Westlaw, research, cite and provide the text/ relevant elements of the statute under which Kant would have been charged and convicted in your state.
Explanation / Answer
Pursuant to above Mr.Kant, and elderly gentleman, was attempting to exchange a purchase made for his wife who wanted to serve it to book club. Looking at long lines at Bilmart Department Store Mr. Kant lost patience. He attempted to exchange of Hoover Beans, which he had previously purchased in error and for which he had a receipt, for the same quantity of Handell Beans.
He left the Hoover beans in Bilmart shopping cart that customarily was used to hold returned merchandise and made way through the store to bean shelf. During entire time Mr. Kant did not try to hide his actions, which were also observed by Bilmart’s security staff, or to secretly or unauthorized way to remove the Handell Beans from the store at the same time he did not intent to leave the store.
There is no sufficient evidence to support an act of deception/steal/shoplift required to prove intent to suffering a severe and damaging lack of basic material the owner of property beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented at Mr. Kant’s trial for shoplifting therefore does not include the requisite intent to damage/steal the owner of property, and therefore, charge on Mr. Kant’s conviction for shoplifting should be reversed.
I hope your question is addressed satisfactorily.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.