Monday, July 05, 2010
No Intent to Permanently Deprive
I was fortunate to watch a fairly short jury trial. The case of the purloined medicine ball.
Facts:
Defendant stole a medicine ball from the local health club by sneaking it out under his jacket at about midnight - just minutes before his membership was to expire. None of this was in dispute. He admitted to the taking both in court as well as on the video of when police came to his home (where he is seen producing the ball and wondering if the victim would take $25.00 for it). He claimed that he only took the ball to get the attention of the victim and to use it for a while as reimbursement to himself from the victim because the health club had cancelled his membership half-way through the month the previous year. So he said that he really planned to give back the item and had no intent to permanently deprive the victim.
Interesting Issue:
The health club is monitored by video. The video is stored on-site as well as at another location. The on-site storage is only temporary as it gets overwritten by the new video. The off-site location video was viewed by the victim who showed it to law enforcement. Law enforcement was unable to make a copy and that hard drive crashed. There was no video to present to the defendant in discovery nor to show the jury. The defendant's counsel objected under the best evidence rule to either the victim or the investigating officer testifying as to the contents of that video. After a break for consideration, the court determined that as the video was not available and had not been made available to the defendant, no testimony as to the content of the video would be allowed as it's probative value would be outweighed by its prejudicial affect. The defendant took the stand and the prosecutor was able to question him about the manner in which he had stolen the ball - all of which he admitted just as it would have been shown on video.
Verdict:
Guilty - the jury deliberated for about 20 minutes.
Facts:
Defendant stole a medicine ball from the local health club by sneaking it out under his jacket at about midnight - just minutes before his membership was to expire. None of this was in dispute. He admitted to the taking both in court as well as on the video of when police came to his home (where he is seen producing the ball and wondering if the victim would take $25.00 for it). He claimed that he only took the ball to get the attention of the victim and to use it for a while as reimbursement to himself from the victim because the health club had cancelled his membership half-way through the month the previous year. So he said that he really planned to give back the item and had no intent to permanently deprive the victim.
Interesting Issue:
The health club is monitored by video. The video is stored on-site as well as at another location. The on-site storage is only temporary as it gets overwritten by the new video. The off-site location video was viewed by the victim who showed it to law enforcement. Law enforcement was unable to make a copy and that hard drive crashed. There was no video to present to the defendant in discovery nor to show the jury. The defendant's counsel objected under the best evidence rule to either the victim or the investigating officer testifying as to the contents of that video. After a break for consideration, the court determined that as the video was not available and had not been made available to the defendant, no testimony as to the content of the video would be allowed as it's probative value would be outweighed by its prejudicial affect. The defendant took the stand and the prosecutor was able to question him about the manner in which he had stolen the ball - all of which he admitted just as it would have been shown on video.
Verdict:
Guilty - the jury deliberated for about 20 minutes.
// posted by Zerin Hood @ 11:40 AM 
