Re:State v. Gross (2001)
Thefacts presented in this memo involve Mr. Sam Kant who had beenaccused of Petit Larceny. On 29th Wednesday Kant went to Bilmartwhere he bought six oz can of Hoover baked beans containing Bacon.Upon going back home his wife was furious for not purchasing what shehad requested. Mrs.Kant ccouldnot standthe taste of Hoover’s Beansinstead she wanted Handell’sbrand, and was planning to serve them to her book club when shehosted them for lunch the following afternoon.Mrs.Kant ordered her husband to return the Hoover Beans to Bilmart andcome back with Handell’s beans. Upon arriving at the Bilmart storein the following morning Mr. Kant found that the queue was so longbecause Bilmart had its annual food sponsorship community drive.
Inefforts to save time and avoid the queue Mr. Kant placed the Hoover’sbeans on the cart and made his way through the store. On reaching thebeans store she added a Handell’s beans into the shopping cart andreturned to the queue only to find out that the line was still long.He feared the wrath of his wife if he failed to reach home beforelunch time. Mr. Kant decided to put Hoover’s beans inside a cartfilled with merchandise for restocking. He ensured that Handell beansremained in the shopping cart and proceeded towards the store exitdoor. On arrival at the door, he was approached and questioned by thestore security officers for shoplifting and later called the police.
Themajor mistake made by Mr. Kant was placing the Hoover beans into acart that contained items for donation to the Bilmart community driverather than putting them on the cart that contained goods forshelving. It can be observed that Mr. Kant did not have the intentionto steal. However, his conduct betrayed him and consequently raisesissues of petite larceny to be leveled against him. It is hard for toprove his innocence because of the mistakes he made when returningthe Hoover beans at Bilmart.
Mr.Kant is on the verge of facing Petit Larceny which is a misdemeanorcriminal act of stealing properties belonging to another person whosevalue is below fifty dollars. The remedy for such offenses under thecommon law is a fine or whipping the defendant. In some rarecircumstance corporal punishment was applied. However, under themodern law imprisonment and fines or both may be utilized as a remedyfor this crime. The Case focuses on identifying legal issues andargument on whether Mr. Sam Kant should be sentenced of Petit Larcenyin agreement with the law provided.
Theanswer on whetherMr. Kant shouldbe convicted of petit larceny ishe should be convicted because his conduct was contrary to what aninnocent person could have acted. There is substantial evidence tothat shows he wrongly picked the Hoover beans from the Bilmart whichwas against the owner’s interest.
Thesimilarities of the facts in the case are that in both cases thedefendants were arrested for shoplifting. Secondly, both cases indictthat there were gross misconducts among the defendants. They bothmade the mistake of taking items which was contrary to the owners’interest. Underthe Criminal Statute §143.00 subsection (a) any person may becharged with Petite Larceny when one deprive or wrongly take anotherperson property.
Thedifferences also exist for instance the contexts were the crimeoccurred was different. Mr. Kant is guilty of Larceny because hisconduct was contrary from what an ordinary person who had come toshop could have done. Besides, his actions were against the interestof Bilmart store owner. He is criminally liable beyond reasonabledoubt that he had committed the offense by wrongly taking owner’sproperty. If not for the security officers he could have left thepremise unnoticed. The gaps that exist in the case of Kant are thatit was hard for him to prove his innocents despite the fact that hedid not intend to shop lift. He was just returning the item in goodfaith but unfortunately made a serious mistake that made himconvicted of petit Larceny.
Thecase law applicable in Mr. Kant scenario is State v. Gross (2001).The defendant was charged with Larceny despite the fact that he hadnot left the facility. It was ruled out by the court that defendanthad the intention to deprive the owner his property. Secondly, hisactions were against owners’ interest. Hence, same judgment as onthe case of State V. Gross should apply to Mr. Kant.
Conclusively,Mr. Kant conduct betrays his innocents making it difficult to provehis innocence before the court of law. He used the wrong procedurewhen returning the Hoover beans at Bilmart. He mistakenly placed theitem for restocking in a wrong cart making it appear as if he wasalso making a donation towards Bilmart community food drive. I wouldrecommend the court to rule his case based on past case law of statev. Gross (2001).He should be fine for his acts to ensure that he doesnot repeat such offense again.
Statev. Gross,(Ct. App. 2001). 31 P.3d 815, 201 Ariz. 41.