People v. Khoury case brief summary
166 Cal.Rptr. 705 (1980)
CASE FACTS
Defendant, after being observed for several hours pushing a shopping cart around a store, was seen pushing a cart with a large cardboard chandelier box on it. An alert cashier at the check stand, noticing that the box was loosely taped, stated that he would have to open and check the contents of the box before he would allow defendant to pay the price marked and remove the box from the store. Defendant then walked back through the check stand and into the store, leaving the box with the cashier. Defendant was arrested by store security after the box was opened, disclosing in excess of $ 900 worth of store items.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment of conviction of grand theft. The court held that defendant's intent to permanently deprive the store of its merchandise was clearly shown in the record. The court also found that the jury was properly instructed as to the necessary elements of the crime of theft by larceny.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
166 Cal.Rptr. 705 (1980)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant appealed the Municipal Court
for the Citrus Judicial District of Los Angeles County (California)
judgment of conviction, entered upon a jury verdict, for grand theft.
Defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him
of grand theft, and also argued that the evidence was insufficient to
show an asportation or carrying away of the personal property of the
victim and therefore was only an attempt to commit grand theft.CASE FACTS
Defendant, after being observed for several hours pushing a shopping cart around a store, was seen pushing a cart with a large cardboard chandelier box on it. An alert cashier at the check stand, noticing that the box was loosely taped, stated that he would have to open and check the contents of the box before he would allow defendant to pay the price marked and remove the box from the store. Defendant then walked back through the check stand and into the store, leaving the box with the cashier. Defendant was arrested by store security after the box was opened, disclosing in excess of $ 900 worth of store items.
DISCUSSION
- Defendant appealed his conviction for grand theft, and the court affirmed.
- The court found that the jury was properly instructed as to the necessary elements of the crime of theft by larceny.
- The jury did not have to be told that there could be no taking or carrying away or asportation unless defendant was able to get the chandelier box containing other store property past the cashier.
- The court held that the intent to permanently deprive the store of its merchandise was clear, and therefore affirmed defendant's conviction for grand theft.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment of conviction of grand theft. The court held that defendant's intent to permanently deprive the store of its merchandise was clearly shown in the record. The court also found that the jury was properly instructed as to the necessary elements of the crime of theft by larceny.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Law
No comments:
Post a Comment