Review and memo of sam kant case_answer
Review the facts of the Sam Kant case from Memo One. For this assignment, Mr. Kant stands charged with petit larceny rather than shoplifting. Please thoroughly apply the law provided below, based on your lessons and reading material regarding legal analysis and writing. In preparing your memorandum, please consult the sample Legal Memorandums from PCD and Statsky. Discuss whether or not you think Mr. Kant could be convicted of petit larceny pursuant to the law provided. Please note, this is a closed memo and no outside research should be conducted. Apply only the law as provided below.
For the purposes of this assignment, Sam Kant stands charged with Petit Larceny under Criminal Statute §143.03(a) which provides the following:
A person is guilty of petit larceny when he deprives the owner of property.
Petit larceny is a class “A” misdemeanor
Criminal Statute § 143.00 Larceny; Defined
(1) A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property, or to appropriate the same to himself, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.
In State v. Gross (2001) the defendant moved for dismissal of petit larceny charges because he had not yet left the store with the merchandise in his possession. Defendant, Gross, removed 2 rib eye steaks from the plastic wrapping in which they were encased, placing them below his shirt and under each armpit, and was apprehended after having passed the last point of purchase, but prior to reaching the exit doors. The court held that: (1) a defendant demonstrates the requisite intent to deprive an owner when he acts in a manner that is contrary to those which would be undertaken by an ordinary person, under ordinary circumstances for the situation involved, and (2) actions that are inconsistent with and are ultimately adverse to the owner’s interest may be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and (3) the nature of these acts may be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite the defendant not having left the premises.