Legal Question in Criminal Law in Michigan

The attorney is correct. The movement of the bottle creates the crime, it doesn't matter if he put it back, as the crime is over. www.kliszlaw.com. Tim Klisz

Meijers doesn't allow its security to leave the premises to chase down your kid for a fumbled attempt to steal booze. People could get hurt or killed (e.g see recent media reports).

Also, your son's credibility is at issue as is your use of the plural pronoun "we" as in "we go to court" and "we do not feel".

Be thankful he wasn't fully charged. The LPO's testimony along with his prior conviction will nail him for RFII and he could end up doing a year if he (not "we") takes it to trial.

Retail fraud is a larceny crime ... stealing. Larceny is committed when you (i) take possession of someone else's property (ii) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it and (iii) there is 'some movement' of the item. (The crime of retail fraud just adds three additional elements: that the items was merchandise for sale in a store, that the store was open for business at the time, and the value of the items.) Once facts prove all of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the crime is committed, and "putting the bottle back" does not UN-do the crime (technically, although a generous jury might think differently). A person's intent can be proven by what they say, what they do and how they do it. By concealing the bottle in his pants, that's some good circumstantial evidence that he intended to steal it as most law-abiding people wouldn't carry it that way. Putting it down his pants is also "some movement" of the item. It is an urban legend that you have to "get out of the store" or "get past all points of purchase" (cash registers) to be charged. That is not true because what a person does before getting that far through the store may be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements of larceny / retail fraud.