Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

attempted petty theft v. robbery

my client (''c'') was detained while in the grocery store for failing to pay for a padlock(the store's merchandise). c had placed the lock in his pants pocket & went to the front of the store to move his bike to a safer location. c was accosted by an in-store loss prevention ofcr (''lpo'') who asaked him if he was going to pay 4 the lock. c pulled $ from 1 poket & the unopened pkg containing the lock from the otr pocket. (This whole incident was captured&recordede on a DVD). W/in seconds a scuffle insued and a security ofcr (''so'') appeared between the 2 men. On the video the so is standing in such a way as to block the view re who instgated the scuffle. The lpo stated that c hit him @ the lip area. My client was chrg'd w/211PC. No photos or otr evidence were taken of the lpo's alleged injury, nor did lpo seek medical attn. c never left the store/store curtilage. Is a 995PC motion be appropriate4? c was cfonvicted in '96 of armed robbery.


Asked on 8/04/07, 8:09 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys
Anne Marie Healy Law Offices of Anne Marie Healy

Re: attempted petty theft v. robbery

IMO, Yes. He never left the store. Maybe I'm wrong, but my understanding is that he has to have left the store for a theft to have occurred. Might be that putting it in his pocket was enough to show intent?

Read more
Answered on 8/04/07, 8:21 pm
Michael Meyer Law Ofc. Of Michael J. Meyer

Re: attempted petty theft v. robbery

Something is fishy with this, IMO. The 211 requires that the accused had taken the property of another "from his person or immediate presence." But your client had the property in his pocket when the scuffle ensued. I think you should scrutinize the police report and consider the 995.

Read more
Answered on 8/04/07, 11:16 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in California